admash

I suspect he would define it as anything the untrained eye would find syntactically indistinguishable from Forth.

Well. We have the PinePhone. Who here would sign up to buy a PinePrinter Color?

Thank you for a well-reasoned response. I respect the depth of your experience and find much of what you say to be persuasive. I will endeavor to factor it into my viewpoint on the topic going forward.

"I don't think it is appropriate to demand a gift," -- I agree completely, hence the use of the term "request".

But I would suggest that rather than making the effort to hinder what may be a genuine attempt at the restoration of a relationship, we should instead seek to help people recognize that forgiveness is voluntary, and that they have every right to decline extending forgiveness if harmed.

To use your phrase, we need to make it a socially acceptable response to deny forgiveness.

Better that forgiveness be rare and sincere, than common and meaningless.

A request for forgiveness indicates that the speaker desires a restoration of the relationship that was damaged. One can have regret ones actions, take responsibility for them, repair any damage, take preventative measures for the future, and still not express any desire to go back to having a good relationship with the person. A request for forgiveness speaks to the motivation of the speaker -- whether it is an interest in the well-being of the harmed party, or merely self-preservation as an individual.

The request for forgiveness is indicative of the desire to restore the relationship, as the other steps can be fulfilled in the absence of that desire.

The capacity of such a request to be manipulative is dependent on first, the sincerity of the desire, and second, on the degree to which the injured party feels compelled to forgive. We do a disservice in the extent that we inculcate an expectation that a request for forgiveness must be granted, as coerced or compelled forgiveness is not meaningful as it does not represent a restoration of the relationship that was damaged.

Six parts to a real apology:

Expression of regret. "I am truly sorry." - Check.

Explanation of what went wrong. "I must have directed angry words at you, who clearly had nothing to do with how the day had gone." - This is weaselly. "I must have...", not "I did".

Acknowledgment of responsibility. " I clearly forget that I am the oldest and most experienced—and I should act this way in a post-mortem conversation." - Weaselly. Whether he was oldest and most experienced or not, no one should behave this way. And rather than taking the responsibility, it's chalked up to forgetfulness.

Declaration of repentance. - Nothing here. No commitment to change. No stated intention for better emotional management.

Offer of repair. - "Finally, as you surely recall, I encouraged you throughout 2019, in person and in email, to join the Racket leadership;" In the absence of any kind of effort or commitment to change, this would not be received as a positive offer. But rather an extension of exposure to an abusive individual. Not much of a repair.

Request for forgiveness. - Nothing here either.

"Rape: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception."

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape

The key point being "valid consent" and its contravention by deception. i.e. It's not valid if what you are consenting to is a lie, namely who you think you are having sex with.

If a policy holder:

  * completes a smoking cessation class
  * has a mammogram/pap smear/PSA test/colonoscopy
  * has cholesterol levels checked
  * attends a monthly diet/nutrition group class
  * attends a participating gym twice a week

then discount the insurance premium appropriately for each positive lifestyle behavior.

Just an aside - I have the perennial walking-stick kale growing at my place. I climb on my roof to to harvest it. It grows enormous leaves too.

The “fun” question is whether prions are present in milk and other dairy products. One might argue that they are not, by virtue of them being largely localized to neural tissue.

Of course, this raises the question of how CWD is being transmitted in elk, since elk don’t eat elk.

“Scientists believe CWD proteins (prions) likely spread between animals through body fluids like feces, saliva, blood, or urine, either through direct contact or indirectly through environmental contamination of soil, food or water.”

https://www.cdc.gov/prions/cwd/transmission.html

Milk is clearly a body fluid, though is curiously absent from the above statement.

And as other comments about the difficulty of sterilizing prions make clear, pasteurization will have no effect.

Compounding USDA's lax practices has been its refusal to allow beef processors to independently test cattle for mad cow disease. In 2004, Creekstone Farms, a Kansas processor of black Angus beef with a large Japanese clientele, asked for permission to test its 300,000 cattle for BSE using a $500,000 testing site it had built to USDA specifications.

But the agency ruled that the BSE test was licensed only for "surveillance" of animal health, and rejected Creekstone's request because it implied "a consumer safety aspect" that was "not scientifically warranted."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/uoia-ftf0515...

Civilization and society is based on a foundation of trust. Lies are a violation of that trust, and thus each is an attack, however small, on that foundation.

Did you not see the effect of lies on the pandemic or this most recent US election?

The unstated phrase at the end of the sentence being “to finish in a reasonable amount of time.”

No one wants to wait two weeks while their r-pi converts a point cloud to a mesh.

I suppose that depends on what you believe the point is.

The opening assertion was that high-fructose corn syrup is a misnomer. This not a historically accurate statement. Disregarding any erroneous conflation of high-fructose corn syrup with corn syrup (of the only type that existed prior to the invention of what is termed high-fructose corn syrup), high-fructose corn syrup is most assuredly "high" in that it contains a "high" percentage of fructose (40-90%) in comparison with the previously existing corn syrup which contain 0% fructose.

It is spurious to hold to a vague definition of "high" that can only apply to concentrations somewhere in excess of 90%, lest we find ourselves unable to refer to water containing 0.5% lead by weight as having "high" levels of lead.

That said, I concur with the assertion that significant consumption of fructose in any of the commonly available forms, including as a component of sucrose, that do not substantially moderate the rate of its absorption (e.g. such as a dietary fiber-based structural matrix) carry an associated negative health risk.

It is accurate to say that sucrose becomes the equivalent of "HFCS-50" upon contact with the enzymes which line the inside of the small intestine.

An excellent and detailed write-up of the biochemical mechanisms and effects involved in fructose metabolism is available at:

https://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/fructose-metabolism/

High-fructose corn syrup is not a misnomer. It is in contrast to ordinary corn syrup which consists almost entirely of glucose along with smaller amounts its oligo-saccharides (e.g. maltose, etc). Corn syrup generally contains no fructose.

To be precise, HFCS-55 is 55% fructose. Commonly used varieties of HFCS include HFCS-42, HFCS-55, and HFCS-90, containing the percentages of fructose indicated by the number, though HFCS-55 is the most commonly used form due to its near-equivalency in sweetness to sucrose.

The amount of free fructose should not be dismissed so readily, as starch requires breakdown into glucose via amylase enzymes, thus "flattening the curve" of its concentration in the blood. Free fructose is rapidly absorbed and the resultant relatively high concentrations induce specific negative effects in the body:

"The activity of fructokinase (KHK) is different from the other hexokinases by virtue of the fact that it induces transient ATP depletion in the cell. The mechanism is due to the fact that fructokinase (KHK) rapidly phosphorylates fructose to fructose-1-phosphate resulting in marked ATP depletion. The activity of fructokinase (KHK) is not subject to feed-back inhibition such as is the case for glucose metabolism, thus the ATP depletion is profound. Since the majority of fructose metabolism occurs in the liver, the effects of this ATP depletion are exerted on numerous important hepatic metabolic processes." (https://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/fructose-metabolism/)

Furthermore:

"In contrast to the anorexigenic effect of hypothalamic glucose metabolism, the metabolism of fructose in the brain exerts an orexigenic effect. ... Since hypothalamic fructose metabolism bypasses this important regulatory step its metabolism rapidly depletes ATP in the hypothalamus. ... Therefore, although glucose and fructose utilize the same signaling pathway to control food intake they act in an inverse manner and have reciprocal effects on the level of hypothalamic malonyl-CoA." (ibid.)

Which is to say, free fructose promotes hunger while starch/glucose metabolism stimulates satiety.

Inaccuracies and bias in food frequency questionnaire reporting (collectively termed “measurement error”) are well known and can effectively be quantified via validation approaches (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5404419/ ) and remediated by well-established statistical techniques such as regression calibration (see https://dietassessmentprimer.cancer.gov/learn/regression.htm... ).

Furthermore, when regression calibration is performed, the magnitude of the calibrated effect is often shown to be greater than the uncalibrated result, so that 1.11 hazard ratio is likely to be larger in reality.

Finally, “small” is clearly relative. I’m certainly quite interested in knowing about things which increase or decrease my risk of having a heart attack or stroke by 10%.

Certainly a blinded randomized controlled feeding trial is preferable, but is not always feasible, particularly when it would entail controlling participants’ diets for long periods of time.

Mail is transferred using SMTP, which may or may not be encrypted via TLS or similar. What protonmail et al. are likely referring to is the zero-knowledge encrypted storage and retrieval of received mail on their servers by their customers.

Thus, since one cannot prove a negative, we can conclude from your statement that, for all intents and purposes, all things are sentient. You sentient-murdering mosquito killer.

Grand assertions made without logical or verbal specificity tend to be of limited utility.

> There is no -ii ending in latin. At all.

Should you mean no -ii ending to "virus" at all, it would appear to be a reasonable assertion. However if by "at all", you mean of any word in Latin, that is demonstrably false.

http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:filius

Nominative and vocative plural: filii

Usage example:

"... et nihilo minus amicum gravem virum aut fidelem libertum lateri filii sui adiungere, ..."

https://thelatinlibrary.com/quintilian/quintilian.institutio...

“ Evidence from RCTs does not clearly support the intended benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners for weight management, and observational data suggest that routine intake of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with increased BMI and cardiometabolic risk.”

Azad MB, Abou-Setta AM, Chauhan BF, Rabbani R, Lys J, Copstein L, Mann A, Jeyaraman MM, Reid AE, Fiander M, MacKay DS, McGavock J, Wicklow B, Zarychanski R. Nonnutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies. CMAJ. 2017 Jul 17;189(28):E929-E939. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.161390. PMID: 28716847; PMCID: PMC5515645.