lukas099

I only know what I just read on wikipedia about her, but it seems like she has been heavily doxxed — I'm guessing she requested this information about herself be excluded? If so, I'm not sure I'd classify that as censorship.

If I help seed this DWeb and it turns out it has some copyrighted materials in it, will I be potentially held liable?

How do you know?

Surely you realize that kidney pie sounds utterly revolting to those of us who haven’t acquired the taste.

I think the trope is that British cuisine, that is, dishes that are uniquely British, are bad. Not that there isn’t good food there. Being a rich country, an empire, and part of Europe means you can have many, many different cuisines there though, and like you said many are very good.

I’m definitely saying “Costco’s” from now on; that’s hilarious to me.

Yes, came here to say that the HN title is misleading.

I’m not an expert but I’d be surprised if they didn’t capture and utilize nitrogen from urine.

Bury the nitrogen rich stuff in carbon rich stuff, like fall leaves.

Municipal facilities turn human waste into fertilizer used on farms

BMI is a screening tool with high sensitivity and low specificity. It is useful for selecting patients for further, more specific tests, such as waist measurement.

But when talking about how the average BMI of all Americans has gone up, it’s mostly fine.

But at a population level (as the article uses it) it’s mostly fine. Unless the sample skews tall or muscular like the Dutch or bodybuilders.

So you agree that noone is telling anyone to "fear fat".

Here are the guidelines so HN readers can judge for themselves: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-0...

I think personal responsibility is a great thing to talk about at the individual level, but when a whole society has an obesity epidemic it's time to look at systemic issues.

I've read the guidelines. They don't say to "fear fat". They say to "limit foods and beverages higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages." The 50% number comes from the fact that the guidelines recommend eating lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and non-red-meat protein foods.

I never denied that they are criticising the high carb recommendation, I'm just saying that is irrelevant to my original comment.

I find it hard to believe that only the grain and sugar industries have powerful lobbyists, and the poor red meat industry has none.

The direct quote that I pasted is clearly criticizing the refined grains and added sugars recommendations as well as the 50% carb recommendation.

Carbohydrates from whole grains are different from added sugars and have completely different effects on the body.

I also think it’s telling that the guidelines for added sugar and saturated fats are exactly the same: limit them to no more than 10% of your calories. But the authors frame this completely differently when it’s about sat fat (“unfounded hostility”) than when it’s about added sugars (“guidelines recommend up to 10 percent“)

> Since the first guidelines were published in 1980, we’ve been told to fear fat and instead consume about half of all calories as carbohydrates. The current guidelines recommend up to 10 percent of calories as added sugar and six servings of grains daily, including three as refined grains.

The guidelines don’t say you should eat sugar and refined grains. They say, if you eat them, you should really limit them to 10% of calories and half your grains at most.

They also don’t say to “fear fat”; that’s just completely made up. They do say to limit saturated fat but this is evidence-based, as are benefits of whole grains.

I would like to believe that's true, but honestly, I know some really hard workers who are gluttons for abuse.

Diminished quality of life during the waiting period

I feel a leaner company would better survive a downturn, though. Fewer layoffs and disruption.

It probably goes against everything they teach in design school, but I find it charming.

In the article it's actually used as an example of direct-marketing jargon.

They wouldn’t have to be joke applications, just worse than the ones that were accepted.

I think it's feasible that the females were significantly more qualified than the males. The fact that going to Caltech is seemingly against the gender norm for women may actually cause them to self-select for only the most qualified and dedicated to STEM to apply. Whereas a lot more men may have applied 'just because'.

Also, women are just doing better in school right now. The average female college applicant is better than the average male college applicant. So it's not hard to imagine this it true for CalTech too.