2,366 karma · joined October 13, 2019
On average, across the whole planet, yes.
In specific regions, this is absolutely false. There are non-linear effects in the climate system that result in some areas warming much faster (e.g. the arctic).
Frankly, if any analysis is vapid, it's this one.
At their current rate of progress, they're gonna need a runway longer than the one at the end of Fast and the Furious 6.
Thanks for providing this! Good to know this is a reliable source!
My process is basically as follows: The night before, prepare dough, divide into portions, place in individual ziploc bags with a bit of oil, and place in the fridge to proof overnight.
Next day, a couple of hours prior to baking, remove the dough from the fridge and allow to warm to room temperature.
Place a pizza stone in the oven and crank the thing to 550F to start heating.
When making a pizza, remove the ball of dough from the bag, dust liberally with flour, then place on parchment, stretch to desired size, and top the pizza however you like.
To load the oven, grab the parchment and slide the pizza onto the back of a sheet pan and deliver onto the stone. Bake for 5-7 minutes. At the 2-3 minute mark, open the oven and slide the parchment out from underneath the pizza.
When it's done, I pull the pizza out onto the sheet pan and place on a cooling rack before serving (thereby preventing the bottom from getting soggy).
Done right I get beautiful thin crust pizza with a nice, crisp, spotty brown bottom.
You've misread the Wikipedia page.
What you're describing is Dauglish's process that preceded CBP. Here's the key bit from the introduction:
> In 1862 a radically new and much cheaper industrial-scale process was developed by John Dauglish, using water with dissolved carbon dioxide instead of yeast, with no need for an eight-hour fermentation. Dauglish's method, used by the Aerated Bread Company that he set up, dominated commercial bread baking for a century until the Chorleywood process was developed.
Notice that last part of the sentence.
CBP, as described in the Wikipedia article, "is achieved through the addition of Vitamin C, fat, yeast, and intense mechanical working by high-speed mixers".
In particular, no CO2 is used with CBP. Bread is proofed by "[placing the dough] in a baking tin and [moving it] to the humidity- and temperature-controlled proofing chamber, where it sits for about 45–50 minutes", with the process aided through the use of dough conditioners like ascorbic acid.
Because the dough is high hydration and proofs gently overnight, it comes out super relaxed and stretchy, so no roller is needed.
What gave you that idea?
Bleached flour and various additives (such as ascorbic acid) are routinely used in home kitchens:
https://thebreadguide.com/using-ascorbic-acid-when-baking/
What, exactly, do you think goes into making a loaf of mass-produced bread?
Otherwise the raw materials are the same:
> Flour, water, yeast, salt, fat, and, where used, minor ingredients common to many bread-making techniques such as Vitamin C, emulsifiers and enzymes are mechanically mixed for about three minutes.
In what way does this represent "processed" food in any material sense?
If anything, this sounds like a perfect example of the kind of fear mongering associated with the "processed food" label...
I disagree. I suspect a lot of people believe Beyond's products are healthier simply by virtue of not being meat.
Heck, they might be right, though I tend to agree with you and suspect it's at best a wash.
Also, thanks for the refresher on modus ponens and the fallacy of the inverse. ;) It's been a long time since formal logic... not that I miss it...
Let me try that again:
I'd say a lot of people view meat substitutes as a healthier choice. But the Beyond Meat burger is, to me, the very definition of an "ultra-processed" food.
So, no meat substitutes for you, then? Because if Beyond Meat burgers aren't "ultra-processed", I don't know what is.
So then we should just call it what it is: junk food.
"ultra-processed" is no better than "gmo", i.e. a completely meaningless label designed to scare people because of spooky "technology", as opposed to actual information people can use to make informed decisions.
> Maybe we could call it “junk” food but that’s even more ambiguous.
LOL... damn, okay, I admit it, I didn't read all the way to the end before commenting. I'm leaving this here as it's a good reminder for myself to slow down...
...
> I'm open to data. I'm open to discussion.
These statements sure seem to be in conflict, so I'm genuinely curious: Are you, though? Open to discussion?
You seem to have made up your mind. You've decided you won't believe "government leaders". You won't believe "policy makers".
I'm going go ahead and guess, based on the tone of your comment, that you are similarly distrusting of information from the medical community.
That would seem to rule out any and all potential sources of data that might demonstrate "the efficacy of the masks that are widely sold, used, and accepted" (e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 - "The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained.").
So... are you really open to data and discussion? Or are you just saying that because it seems like the right thing to say?
And no, I'm not trying to be a snide smart-ass. I'm trying to reveal what you're actually thinking and feeling. Because I'll be honest, I don't think what you've written here reflects your actual, deep-down feelings on the topic.
Talk about highschool level sophistry. "Nah bro, there are no facts, everything is meaningless, the truth is a lie and all lies are true, man!"
Please.
> I do believe in objective truth.
Oh good, I'm glad you took the time to contradict yourself.
> However, if we had a mechanism for objectively determining it in a way we all agreed upon
So misinformation exists but we'll never be able to identify it?
I repeat: please.
The world is not flat. The anunaki don't exist. COVID vaccines don't contain microchips.
This isn't even a little bit hard.
Does it get hard in the muddy middle? Sure. But your claim that 'There is no such thing as "misinformation"' is pure bunk.
It seems to me the religion of capitalism has a solve, here, and it's called competition.
If they really believe in freedom, they should support the freedom of Twitter to kick them off the platform, and these folks have the freedom to find another platform elsewhere.
But, of course, freedom isn't what these people are after. They just want to manufacture a different kind of consent.
That was true until they started promoting and demoting content in order to drive engagement and juice their ad revenues.
Big tech is not plumbing. The minute Facebook invented the news feed they became editors and content promoters.
If they really want to just be plumbing, they can shut down their algorithms any time.
As an aside, I picked on that part of the post because the rest of it quickly pivots away from tech and reads as a self-promoting, semi-unhinged rant about covid that reads like the drunken ramblings of Q adjacent anarcho-libertarian, complete with the big hits: references to the "Davos elite", hydrochloroquine, ivermectin, Evil Dr. Fauci, etc, etc.
Which reminds me, I should probably flag this post given it's relevance to HN is glancing at best...
People used to eat radium, inhale mercury, and play in piles of asbestos before we came to understand their long term health effects.
You might want to rethink this.
https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-m...
https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2021/08/05/gibraltar-resident...
Let's not get hysterical. Breakthrough cases will happen. That they cluster is no great surprise at all.
Is covid a nuisance for Gibraltar? No. But it's far from the threat it was pre-vaccine.
I strongly suspect the real reason is they just doesn't care enough to spend time trying something different. And that's totally fine! They have absolutely no obligation to change just because a bunch of folks dislike reading tweet threads.
But there are absolutely alternatives out there if folks are interested in checking them out.
It mentions in multiple places that climate change is increasing the duration of the forest fire season and worsening conditions that promote wildfire.
The point of the article is that outcomes of poor forestry management practices (a build up of fuel that lead to truly enormous wildfires when they finally burn) were bad enough, and now climate change is dramatically exacerbating those effects.
As a result, changing our forestry management practices to adopt controlled burns, thinning, and other techniques, will be a critical element of climate change adaptation.
That's not to say we shouldn't stop CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to avoid even worse future effects. But we've already warmed the globe enough that adaptation is already necessary, and this is just one example.
I then provided reasons why the two known datasets that might sugggest particularly poor vaccine efficacy versus Delta (both of which I was aware of) should be taken with a grain of salt. In the case of Mass, the dataset is small and hard to extrapolate from, and the Israelis released neither their data not their methodology so we can't evaluate the quality of the study.
Unless you can explain otherwise those are both perfectly valid reasons not to cherrypick those studies to make the case here, particularly given they contradict a mountain of evidence that leads to different conclusions.
Of course, you're more than free to similarly critique the citations I provided if you care to.
Frankly, I'm not sure you know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is...
But it's also a small sample size and there could be many reasons why, in that group, the numbers came out the way they did, including natural clustering.
That would also explain the OPs anecdote as it's very possible an individual hospital is seeing more hospitalizations among the vaccinated just due to the vagaries of statistics. That's why large sample sizes and careful analysis are so important when coming to these conclusions.
But we have substantially more data from Canada and the UK and so far that data shows that the vaccines are effective versus Delta.
I think it's far more likely that the expressed reasons you cite are, for many (I'd bet 15-20% of the population), just rationalizations for the underlying reason which is that being anti-covid-vaccine is now a part of some folks political, cultural, and/or religious identity.
And it is damn tough to break through something like that. That's doubly true when political and religious leaders are actively pushing people to not get vaccinated.
Have you looked at uptake rates for the seasonal flu vaccine?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1819estimates.ht...
> Flu vaccination coverage among adults ≥18 years was 45.3%, an increase of 8.2 percentage points from the 2017–18 flu season and 2.0 percentage points higher than the 2016–17 season.
That is not a bar we should be aiming at...
India or Brazil would seem to be the obvious counterfactuals. Unfortunately, their officially reported death rates probably can't be trusted so the best we can do is look at excess deaths, and in India, as an example, it's... pretty ugly:
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/07/20/1018438...
That's closer to 3 deaths per thousand, or 50% higher than your estimate.
Putting that in context, assuming 8 deaths per thousand as a baseline, that number going to 11 per thousand is a 40% increase in excess deaths.
And that's ignoring that those deaths will be concentrated in specific cohorts (the elderly, the vulnerable, people in high risk jobs, etc) who don't have the luxury of working from a cozy home office.
> The point of the story was that (for Statisticsville, at least) the people were so busy fighting amongst themselves about what actions to take (or not) about an infectious disease that they didn't realize the deadly side effects of that social discord until it was too late.
This is, unfortunately, a unique problem of the US. While there's certainly been plenty of social discord in other countries as a consequence of Covid policies, they've been nowhere near the level of what's seen in the US.
The solution isn't to compromise public health policy so as to avoid touching off a partisan foodfight. The solution is to address the root problem that has lead to such severe social discord; to heal those fissures that have opened up in US society that have lead to every single issue being politicized and thus polarized to the detriment of the entire population.
Are you saying you haven't actually read any of them?
Want more? Okay, fine, here's just one jurisdiction which provides a wealth of data and a variety of breakdowns, including percentage of hospitalizations by vaccination status (this is a jurisdiction where >60% of eligible people are fully vaccinated and >75% are partially vaccinated, so there's a wealth of data about vaccine effectiveness):
https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm...
> 92.1% of hospitalized cases (5,260/5,709) since Jan 1, 2021 were unvaccinated or diagnosed within two weeks from the first dose immunization date
I'll grant you that breakdown doesn't specifically break out Delta cases from non-VOC cases, but they also include a specific analysis of vaccine effectiveness versus Delta based on current data in the province:
> B.1.617 Variant [Partial] 57% (51 to 63%) [Complete] 85% (78 to 89%)
Now, this is a blended set of numbers across all vaccine types, and so represents the average effectiveness across Pfizer, Moderna, and AZ. So there's some nuance that's missing, here.
Regardless, even with just a single dose of a COVID vaccine the average effectiveness versus Delta of symptomatic illness is greater than 50%, which, as I previously noted, will absolutely put a significant dent in the R-value. And 85% is absolutely fantastic.
Alright, I showed you mine, now you show me yours.