Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion were so peak. The first step into minimalism was beautiful, too, I'll admit, but it's culminated in this Liquid Glass garbage, so it was ultimately a misstep.
I think, at a minimum, a return to print or radio news is called for. They necessitate attentive consumption of information in a way that video just doesn't. I feel like they leave mental space open for critical thought. TikTok is the total opposite.
I don't know how bad TikTok is because shorts just don't grab hold of me hard enough to even look at the app, at most I see someone else sharing a short of something silly on a meme channel.
But… and I appreciate you did say "at a minimum"…
Radio is absolutely something you can have on in the background, vibrating your eardrums without engaging your attention.
Intentionality may be impossible in TikTok for all I know, but it isn't enough to just do radio, and I think also not print.
And then they scoff, and say, "so you just 'trust the experts,' then?"
I don't have the time to become expert in global affairs, history, climate science... all the fields implicated by the big hot-button issues. The next best thing is defer to someone knowledgeable and objective (given you can find such a person), IMO.
> Assaults see the largest jump — up to 93% after unexpected home team outcomes.
Insane that assaults nearly double. And this is just sports betting. The real-world betting sites (like Kalshi) haven't taken off too quickly, but what about if/when they eventually do?
This has been a factoid as long as the super bowl. It's just now it's every game day. People are pissed about losing money so they've got a shorter fuse than everyone else in their household is used to them having on any given day.
In fairness, one could characterize that brokenness as being the fault of us, the consumers. The "boot" is self imposed. People demand their Twinkies and 2 liter soda bottles. Undoubtedly, this is a good thing, but it's a tad sad it took a miracle pill to do what good individual decision-making could've accomplished just as well this whole time.
We're running on monkey hardware. People aren't going to make good choices all the time, even the most disciplined and educated among us. It's unethical to intentionally exploit our weaknesses and throw up your hands like there's nothing you could have done.
In any case, here in the US, companies that made money by peddling high sugar/grain diets lobbied to have a practically inverted food pyramid so Americans for generations to come would grow up believing the wrong things about a healthy and balanced diet. That was the culmination of decades of effort by junk food companies to fund fake studies to malign fats to point fingers at basically any food except the problem one: sugar.
I guess I agree with you. Deep down, I wish they hadn't given up on prohibition, and that we'd have banned smoking, too. Still, though, there's gotta be a point where people become responsible for their actions. We're running on "monkey hardware," true, but one who gives in to their monkey brain rage and commits murder will still rightfully end up imprisoned. We expect individuals to have self control.
Couple other notes: I agree that excessive sugar is bad, but there's nothing wrong with whole grains. Also, we talk of corporate lobbies altering the public narrative on nutrition, but honestly, how much does it really matter? How much heed do most people pay to their image of a healthy diet? Is anyone really fooled into thinking soda, or fast food, is good? I don't think so.
Yeah the grain thing is weird because they've over-represented grains on the pyramid because grain products are what the companies were trying to sell, but they also added a ton of unnecessary sugar to a bunch of these grain products and mislead people about the nutritional value Remember those commercials? Shows a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch next to a glass of orange juice "Part of this balanced breakfast!" How about the ones where people would buy and eat Honey Nut Cheerios because they are "heart healthy"? Lol I actually believed that as a kid. They've been sued over this multiple times but courts tend to hold that false advertising is fine as long as there's still some FUD about how bad sugar is for you [1].
> Judge Jeffrey White’s Aug. 13 order said the plaintiffs “cannot plausibly claim to be misled” about the sugar content of their cereal purchases. The company’s front-of-package and side panel labeling lists “all truthful and required objective facts about its products,” he wrote.
> The judge also noted there is no consensus about how much sugar is healthy, Food Navigator reported. “Defendant is under no obligation to warn its consumers that certain levels of sugar may be associated with poor health results,” he wrote.
Back to what you said
> Also, we talk of corporate lobbies altering the public narrative on nutrition, but honestly, how much does it really matter? How much heed do most people pay to their image of a healthy diet? Is anyone really fooled into thinking soda, or fast food, is good? I don't think so.
I personally think that if people understood how habit forming, addictive, unhealthy, and fattening all the junk food is they would make sure their children ate a lot less of it, and eventually that would move the needle. Due to my struggles with childhood obesity that I've managed to get under control as an adult, I'm definitely going to limit my kids' intake of junk food if I ever have any.
> but one who gives in to their monkey brain rage and commits murder will still rightfully end up imprisoned.
In theory prison is part of a solution, but the goals should be to protect the general public and to reform the incarcerated so they can rejoin society and participate more harmoniously than before. Prison as it stands is... Well it's like it was designed by a committee of angry monkeys.
The point of assigning blame here isn't so much a moral exercise as it is to decide what went wrong, how to deal with it, and how to prevent the same failure modes in the future.
It's sugar, not a hard drug. Your agency isn't substantially subverted by the drive to consume it. Self control isn't easy, though; that's why it's a virtue.
> Repeated, excessive intake of sugar created a state in which an opioid antagonist caused behavioral and neurochemical signs of opioid withdrawal. The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine, suggesting that the rats had become sugar-dependent.
This one is even better but should be read in full:
> The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol
> "The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine"
The key word being "qualitatively." Yes, something like a dependency can develop, but unless it's of roughly equal severity to hard drug dependencies, then the comparison is inappropriate. Hard drugs substantially affect one's agency, to a degree which sugar just doesn't.
Do you really think I believe sugar is as much addictive as heroin? Because I don't.
Sugar is addictive, so talking about "individual decision-making" of millions of people like you did, like they lack willpower, is not going to improve the situation regarding the obesity epidemic.
You should do a bit of research of what can be found in supermarkets in developed countries of the EU, and what sort of food norms they have.
Of course you can put any problem on the fault of free will if you really want.
LOL I didn't think it needed to be said! So I didn't include it in my reply to you. I am here replying to someone else, not to you.
I think, generally, it is due to a lack of will, yes. Of course, eliminating the bad options altogether -- I mean, restricting what products can appear in stores -- would be more effective than relying on the willpower of individuals. Although, that would require some serious market intervention...
Thanks for this. Really quells the urge I get every so often to just code my own PDF editor, because they all suck and certainly it couldn't be THAT hard. Such hubris!
> PDF includes eight basic types of objects: Boolean values, Integer and Real numbers, Strings, Names, Arrays, Dictionaries, Streams, and the null object
Wait, this is more complete than SOAP. It may be a good idea to redo the IPC protocol with a different serialization format!
7.5.6 "Incremental updates" from the specification is an interesting section too, speaking about accessing data people didn't think to remove from PDF files properly.
I did a bunch of work creating pdfs using a low-level API, object goes here stuff.
As far as I understand it, at its core, pdf is just a stream of instructions that is continually modifying the document. You can insert a thousand objects before you start the next word in a paragraph. And this is just the most basic stuff. Anything on a page can be anywhere in the stream. I don't know if you can go back and edit previous pages, you might have a shot at least trying to understand one page at a time.
Did you know you can have embedded XML in PDFs? You can have a paper form with all the data filled in and include an XML version of that for any computer systems that would like an easier way to read it.
I see my comment got upvotes but yours is downvoted for some reason, maybe they only read the first sentence and thought you were disagreeing? (or they agree with this for meastball but not milk for some reason)
The job of the justices is to interpret the Constitution, not maintain a public image. The law profs who authored this are surely aware of that. "Illegitimate" means more than "people dislike it." I think the late Justice Scalia did things right: delivering decisions that aligned with his Constitutional philosophy, even if he ultimately found the results distasteful (nevermind what the public had to say!).
A small YouTube channel I found, hosted by a constitutional litigator, has a number of solid videos about the S.C., and about this "partisanship problem" in particular [1]. The D/R split of the S.C. is much fuzzier than I once thought.
Through July, all of the lower federal courts, including many conservative justices, ruled against Trump ~93% of the time.
The S.C. reversed that and ruled for him by roughly the same percentage.
If the justices seems partisan, it’s probably because they are.
I think he's old enough to be tried as an adult here. He architected the product, it was no silly accident. I think his choice of role models may be a reflection of his character...
reply