Banks didn't support TOTP long before we were able to easily sync them across devices. It's likely more along the lines of banks generally have bad IT departments and outdated digital security policies.
the Ethereum Name Service already exists and services this role just fine. Also the only bottleneck for Blockchain is writing to them. Reading them is free and easily available as everyone can have their own copy of the chain and there's already lots of RPC providers like Infura and Alchemy.
>I find it remarkable that Americans are ok with rule by executive order instead of rule by congressional law.
Can you cite a poll for this? Most Americans have never been asked and likely aren't okay with it but we don't really have a choice in the matter.
When it comes down to it the decision on how executive orders work is based on what a few dozen people think and most of them aren't elected. The general public has no say in the matter.
What makes you reasonably confident? Cooking leading to better nutrient absorption and our IQ growth is mainstream science so making a wild contradiction like that without something to back it up isn't very helpful. Helping with food-based illness is an interesting thought though.
>if Apple kept Google as the default search engine because it’s the best on the market and Apple doesn’t want to provide an inferior option to its users
Apple did exactly this in the past with Apple Maps replacing Google Maps, so I don't see why this would bother them much.
This is the same argument they used in the 90s to ban Mortal Kombat and other violent games. It wasn't a good argument then and it isn't a good argument today.
I don’t remember what the fallacy is called, but there’s one, where folks take something that belongs to one instance, and apply it to another instance, where the veracity is tenuous.
An example is Marie Nyswander’s “broken brain” theory, that she invented, to push methadone. It’s never even come close to being proven, but sounds downright sensible; especially when someone wearing a lab coat spouts it. It’s the one, where they tell you that your brain is “broken,” because of drug use, and can no longer produce endorphins (or other brain chemicals -it can vary). There is a significant element of shame involved, telling the user that it’s “their fault” that their “brain is broken,” but they are in luck, because this pill will fix it.
It was pretty much B. S., anyway, even for opiate drug use, but I have also seen it applied to alcoholism, pot smoking, kleptomania, sexual compulsion, gambling, anorexia, cults, video games, violent behavior, and habitual criminal behavior.
It’s one of those theories that makes sense, if you don’t sweat the details, but has never actually been proven, by anyone reputable.
Lot of CBD snake oil uses similar stuff.
Like I said, the progression only actually seems to happen to a fairly small number of people. The crimes they commit, though, are pretty bad. A risk management approach needs to score both impact and probability. People tend to get caught up in only one axis; usually the one that supports their preconceptions.
I have an acquaintance that is a passionate pool safety advocate. That’s because she had a nephew die in a pool. If you talk to her, pool safety is the #1 national priority, and all other issues are secondary.
This is a wild claim to make and doesn't seem to hold true scientifically. Humans require fat, protein, and various vitamins usually received from vegetables. There is no requirement that comes from carbohydrates as they effectively are just empty calories.
Carbohydrates are not necessary for survival, but there are circumstances when they are necessary, for instance when a very intense effort is required to be sustained for a long time it is impossible to achieve a maximum performance without eating carbohydrates, because they can be absorbed and used for energy production faster than the alternatives.
Moreover, there is not enough data to decide whether a diet lacking almost completely carbohydrates results in optimal health in the long term, even if it may have favorable effects when replacing a worse previous diet.
Carbohydrates are also the cheapest kind of food. While eating them in excess is bad, obtaining less than 50% of the energy intake from carbohydrates still results in a much lower cost of the food than replacing all of them with expensive fats and proteins.
For diabetes prevention, it is likely that it is more important to avoid sugar than it is to avoid starch, because in many traditional societies where starch was a big fraction of their food, diabetes was nevertheless uncommon.
What is know for fact that this "carbs are evil" messaging absolutely sux for anyone having to deal with eating disorder - both sic people and their close ones. And if I had to choose between diabetes and eating disorder, I would go for diabetes.
> Carbohydrates are not necessary for survival, but there are circumstances when they are necessary, for instance when a very intense effort is required to be sustained for a long time it is impossible to achieve a maximum performance without eating carbohydrates, because they can be absorbed and used for energy production faster than the alternatives.
And some people require an intake of 8000+ kcal a day. Not relevant to anything.
Nothing gives me quick, accessible energy like carbs though. Energy to think and love my body. Yes I’ve seen documentaries on low carb high fat ultra athletes, but they still have their fats with a bowl of pasta. God only knows their saturated fat intake too. A carbless diet does not seem well rounded, and is thus unhealthy. So carbs are essential.
It does not follow from you personally deriving psychological benefits or quick energy from eating carbs that a diet which excludes them is not well rounded or is unhealthy.
So you go from "does not seem well rounded" to "therefore is essential"?
Here's some facts.
There are nine essential amino acids that our body needs to function properly and cannot produce by itself from something else.
Meat provides those amino acids and carbs do not.
Carbs are a source of energy but so is fat, proteins, ketones and alcohol.
In addition to reversing diabetes, people on low carb / high fat diets, including carnivore, often report increase in overall energy levels and lifting of a mental fog that they experienced on standard carb and sugar heavy diet.
That energy spike that carbs and sugar give you is a glucose spike in blood and the downside of it is that often it goes in the other direction (i.e. lethargy) when you come off of it.
That's the "nap after heavy meal" effect.
This is not an anti-carb just anti what you do, elevating carbs into some unquestionably good, unique energy source necessary for you to think or love your body.
Consuming carbs in moderation is fine.
The problem is that our modern diet and what is available in grocery stores or restaurants make it almost impossible to consume carbs in moderation.
And apparently plenty people like you don't even understand that carbs are, in fact, bad for most people.
U.S. stats on this are shocking: 73.6% americans over 20 are overweight and 42.4% obese (all obese people are overweight but not all overweight people are obese)
> A carbless diet does not seem well rounded, and is thus unhealthy.
Why “thus”. Just saying that lacking something is not well rounded thus unhealthy just looks some sort of middle of the road fallacy.
Diets that are not about calorie restrictions are all about excluding certain things. And they all claim to be better than the potentially more versatile middle of the road diet.
