Unfortunately not in portrait mode, at least for me. And in both portrait and landscape modes on my N7 Firefox only shows 3.5 tabs, about the same as Chrome.
848 karma · joined March 22, 2010
On it in Chrome I normally browse the web in portrait mode and I can see the titles of about three tabs, but only a few words of each. With a slide out side panel on the left (activated by dragging left to right from off the screen onto the screen) I would be able to see the titles for 15 or so tabs, with larger press areas and close buttons.
I realize for every tab switch this would require a swipe and a click, but as it is now the tab is often not one of the three visible and so I already have to swipe multiple times across the tab bar to see the tab before clicking it.
At least for people video chatting with you :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-SKWfNWS08
Not sure how fast the person in this video is walking though. [edit: looks like he's walking at 2-2.5mph, whereas author recommends 0.5mph]
It's the energy density and palatability, not macronutrient content.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/2/268.long
"In studies of satiation, it is important to match the palatability of the foods when they are compared. If it is not, the fact that one food tastes better than another could override any effects of the nutrient composition on amount consumed (Drewnowski 1998). In addition, to study the specific effects of macronutrients, they must be manipulated independently of energy density."
"These three studies indicate that the amount of fat in the diet did not influence satiation when the energy density was held constant."
"These results provide clear evidence that the energy density of food can affect satiation independently of macronutrient content and palatability."
| food (100g prepared) | cals |
|----------------------+------|
| KFC double down | 224 |
| whole wheat bread | 259 |
| brown rice | 110 |
| corn | 86 |
| carrots | 41 |
| cantaloupe | 34 |
| food (100g prepared) | cals | fat |
|----------------------+------+-----|
| peanuts | 567 | 73% |
| black beans | 91 | 3% |
| bacon | 541 | 71% |
| brown rice | 110 | 7% |
| oats | 63 | 13% |
| chicken breast | 195 | 37% |
| provolone cheese | 351 | 67% |
| light string cheese | 200 | 45% |
| cantaloupe | 34 | 5% |
| carrots | 41 | 5% |
| corn | 86 | 11% |
| whole wheat bread | 259 | 14% |
Note how even chicken breast and light string cheese are twice as dense as than those whole grain products.
Note how high water content fruits and vegetables are king.
https://www.youtube.com/user/PrimitiveNutrition/featured Transcripts: http://www.plantpositive.com
I mention that it's a lot of Kale and allude that it's not practical to eat that much ("Obviously I'm not recommending people eat 74.6 cups of Kale each day"). The parent said there exists no combination of plants that could match the Soylent nutrients, and I showed that just using a single plant and a single supplement you could get almost there on all the nutrients for which I had data, so it's plausible there does exist some combination that gets there (except for B12, and possibly some of the other nutrients for which I don't have data if they do not exist in any plants).
Also, from what I understand many of the benefits of these nutrients are diminished or not observed when they are injested from industrial refined supplements like those used in Soylent as when they are eaten in whole plant foods like Kale.
The five nutrients where Kale had less were Sodium, Selenium, Pantothenic acid, Vitamin D, and Vitamin B12. Kale's Sodium was still 127% of the RDA, Selenium was 82% of the RDA, and Pantothenic acid was 91% of the RDA. Not bad for a single plant. I suspect that in a well-rounded whole plant diet these deficiencies would be resolved. If you grow your own Kale then you will make plenty of Vitamin D :) If you don't make enough then you can supplement Vitamin D like millions of animal-eating humans do. B12 is not included in plants, so obviously if you eat only plants you need to supplement it. It costs less than US$0.01/day so I don't see that as a major problem.
I'm highly suspicious that you will find many nutritionists who would say that Soylent is more nutritious than a diet of whole plant foods.
Notes: the USDA data for nutrient amounts in foods are not always very accurate. I believe the nutrient amounts linked by the parent represent an old Soylent recipe, since they have only 5g of fiber which is less than RDA of 25g (female) and 38g (male). "-" in the table indicates I don't have data for this. (+ (* 4.1 400) (* 50 4.1) (* 65 9.3)) => 2449.5 calories for the Soylent data you linked [edit: I'm not sure if carbs included fiber so it's possible that the Kale diet has 1% more calories than the Soylent diet]
Obviously I'm not recommending people eat 74.6 cups of Kale each day, but you can get all you need of these nutrients from a much more tasty diet of a variety of whole plant foods.
| | Soylent | Kale |
|---------------------+---------+----------|
| Calories | 2449.5 | 2449.1 |
| Carbohydrates | 400 g | 437 g |
| Protein | 50 g | 213 g |
| Fat | 65 g | 46 g |
| Sodium | 2.4 g | 1.9 g |
| Potassium | 3.5 g | 24.5g |
| Chloride | 3.4 g | - |
| Fiber | 5 g | 179 g |
| Calcium | 1 g | 7.4 g |
| Iron | 18 mg | 73 mg |
| Phosphorus | 1 g | 4.5 g |
| Iodine | 150 μg | - |
| Magnesium | 400 mg | 2349 mg |
| Zinc | 15 mg | 28 mg |
| Selenium | 70 μg | 45 μg |
| Copper | 2 mg | 74 mg |
| Manganese | 2 mg | 32 mg |
| Chromium | 120 μg | - |
| Molybdenum | 75 μg | - |
| Vitamin A | 5000 IU | 83220 IU |
| Vitamin B6 | 6 μg | 13.5 mg |
| Vitamin C | 60 mg | 5997 mg |
| Vitamin D | 400 IU | 0 |
| Vitamin E | 30 IU | 77 mg |
| Vitamin K | 80 μg | 35227 μg |
| Thiamin | 1.5 mg | 5.5 mg |
| Riboflavin | 1.7 mg | 6.5 mg |
| Niacin | 20 mg | 50 mg |
| Folate | 400 μg | 7047 μg |
| Biotin | 300 μg | - |
| Pantothenic acid | 10 mg | 4.5 mg |
| Lycopene | 500 μg | - |
| Omega-3 fatty acids | 750 mg | 9000 mg |
| Ginseng | 50 μg | - |
| Ginkgo biloba | 100 μg | - |
| Lutein | 500 μg | - |
| alpha-Carotene | 140 μg | - |
| Vanadium | 100 μg | |go to the top level domain directly instead of hunting and hoping that they have a link there
going up several directories on an ftp site
go from reddit.com/r/starcraft to reddit.com/r/nba
go from a foo.github.io/bar docs page to github.com/foo/bar instead of hunting, and hoping, for a link
increment the page number on a blog by several instead of clicking next repeatedly
prepend http://www.google.com/url?q= to NYTimes urls to avoid paywall
add ?limit=100 to see more comments on reddit comment page
going to a new topic on wikipedia
Imagine if the front page were full with these kind of titles. We might as well change the titles to random numbers.
The last post by this guy that I remember, and the second to last one to do well on the frontpage (perhaps explaining the current behavior), was titled "Off". Can you get any more vague?
In that post all he said about anything being off was "The presenting executives seemed a bit off, too."
My prediction is that before long he'll have a post at the top of Hacker News titled "And" where he ends it with "And that's what I think."
Capitalism is the reason there will be a hotel with a room available when he goes to visit family. It's the reason there will be gas at the gas stations along the way. It's the reason Disneyworld will still be operating when he gets there.
Most important of all, Capitalism is the reason why so many of his peers are wealthy enough to afford the basic survival needs of themselves and their own families that they are able to donate some of their surplus to help this family in need.
That said, I agree that consumerism and living beyond one's means and not saving for a rainy day and distorted markets are problems.
And maybe he was thinking of a China GDP number from a year or two ago. When I google "China GDP" it gives me $7.3 billion from 2011.
And "nearly" is subjective.
And most military spending is welfare, either to defense contractors or otherwise.
https://github.com/Zaku-eu/colourco.de/blob/be7a41500fd1b358...
or a convenient Emacs command/function:
(defun rgb-to-fgc (&optional background)
"Returns a hex RGB triplet string for a chosen color or
BACKGROUND."
(interactive)
(let ((background-rgb (color-name-to-rgb (or background
(read-color nil t))))
(m (/ 96.0 255))
(foreground-rgb (mapcar (lambda (x)
(+ x (if (> (apply #'max background-rgb)
(- 1 m))
(* m -1)
m)))
background-rgb))
(foreground (apply #'color-rgb-to-hex foreground-rgb)))
(message foreground)
foreground))For a long time I've wanted a new source that will only show me stories that are likely to be relevant in a year. If no one is going to care or remember something in a month, then I'd rather just skip it. Portal:Current_events is as close to that as I've found.
What I love about it: very short summaries with the most important details about stories that people might still care about in a year, no sensational or partisan headlines, one click to excellent summaries of the issues, and I can easily catch up after missing a few days, whereas many news sites make it hard to see what they looked like even yesterday.
Take for instance the top story on bitofnews.com. The Portal:Current_events summary is:
"<a>A roof collapse</a> at a grocery store in <a>Riga</a>, Latvia, kills more than 50 people."
So it's more up to date than the bitofnews summary that has "at least 32," and if I care where Riga is instead of reading "Riga, which is the biggest city in the Baltics and its biggest seaport" I can click the Riga link and see a map and photo and population etc. If I want to know about the ongoing event, I can click the "a roof collapse" link and I'm presented with a pretty good summary of the issue.
I'm happy to see more news sources like this appear though. My only problem with the Portal:Current_events is that it doesn't have a good RSS feed and if I check it more than once a day, or mid-day, then it can be hard to see what has changed since my last visit.
I think you have this backwards, perhaps unintentionally. North Carolina, with its Republican controlled Senate, and House, and Governor has passed voter ID laws. They are being challenged by the Democrat-controlled US Department of Justice.
In areas where Republicans win elections (roughly non-urban America), military "service" is very often held in quite high regard. Sure, it's not like being a doctor, but I don't think parents are often ashamed of it. Parents, siblings, and grandparents are often quite proud that their family member is in the Marines, for example. People wear t-shirts advertising their current or past involvement. At American Football games they often have active duty military stand up and people clap for them.
As for some examples of military propaganda, here are some that come to mind (note I'm not the OP):
- July 4 and other holidays where the military participates prominently in parades.
- military jets flying over head of a sporting event or a parade, or an air show.
- school field trips to military bases or military museums.
- military bands performing concerts
- mentions to "brave men and women in uniform" in political speeches everywhere
- "support our troops," "my son's a Marine" signs/bumper stickers
- Hollywood videos that glorify the US military and lease military equipment/personnel
- Video games where the US military or US military weapons feature prominently. The US Army famously sponsored a very expensive game a decade ago.
- tons of advertisements on Channel One news, perhaps a couple a day, a TV station that almost all high school students were required to watch during the 90s (I don't know about now)
The idea being that proper governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. One could argue that so-called intellectual property rights aren't rights that existed before governments created them.
Given that the cheapest DIY soylent appear to be primarily based traditional staples like rice, oats, peas, soy, and flax seeds, it doesn't seem very likely to be cheaper. The initial price for the official one is $9/day, while the cost of the cheapest DIY based on traditional foods is $2/day.
Though unless you're planning on sending your kids to one of these schools I don't think this really tells you much of anything.