Butter is good for you provided you don't fry with it. If overheated it supplies more than the usual amount of inflammatory compounds. Instead, fry with ghee (clarified butter) or tallow.
Repetition of a true message to a variety of audiences may be valuable because one gains a better understanding of the common misconceptions and opposing arguments. Which leads to subtly improved arguments and rhetoric. Also there's always the possibility that the message is in fact wrong and that this may be brought to light by new criticism or fresh evidence.
'7. Pity the readers' follows from the curse of knowledge, namely that's it's hard to imagine what it's like not to know what you know. This applies in novels as much as in technical writing. For example, descriptions of landscapes are often ambiguous because the writer already has a picture of the landscape in mind.
It's about shared negative emotional experiences, of which their are more when one is young e.g. school, leaving home. It follows that if you wish to befriend adults you need to share a rock climbing accident, get stuck together in an airport for 72 hours, or similar.
Yes, more than that: if robot cars could be made incapable of hitting pedestrians, then children might start to roam again. It would be a marvellous unintended consequence...
This is the common sense view. But I think it's mistaken, which is what makes the article surprising and interesting.
People can learn and adapt to alcohol consumption and use it to get more work done, especially unpleasant work, just as they do with coffee. Not necessarily their best work, but work nonetheless. Some function very effectively on it, even intellectually e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
And now CRISPR technologies are being developed I trust that in addition to eliminating Huntington's disease, Tay-Sachs, Fragile X, and what have you, we will fix the GULO gene so that our bodies can recommence Vitamin C production.
I agree. The best that can be said is something about communication of information between different parts of the brain. But my reason is more fundamental: we don't understand what consciousness is yet. Hence we can't know what questions about 'it' are meaningful let alone what conclusions to draw.
It's complicated. If I gave an obese person a bag of sugar or a kilo of lard she probably wouldn't enjoy these things. On the other hand some folk can eat luxury foods regularly without ill effect. It depends on personality and intent as much as upon specific foodstuffs and substances.
And are you sure about protein? Personally I experience a strong desire for meat if I haven't had any for a few days. The fulfillment of that desire creates a visceral pleasure. Furthermore I can't imagine giving up apparently innocuous items like tomatoes, either. For a few months perhaps but after a few years I'm sure I would pine at the memory of fresh juicy tomatoes.
The 'facts' that I referred to are the results of correlation studies as published in science journals. The diets you mention are mainstream fads.
You're right, though, it is frustrating! My personal opinion is that it is the way we use food for pleasure and comfort that it is to blame. We are literally getting high on what we eat, which is deleterious for health if performed without break for long periods. But there's no obvious way for a scientist to address this idea at present; it would be considered too subjective and thus ignored by the majority.
Nutrition, medicine, psychology are beset by empiricism: trying to find facts without having theories to support them. Journalists then make hay with the results, hinting at conclusions and advice for the public, using the authority of Science, but really bringing it into disrepute. An awful lot of research money has been wasted in this way and of course much of the work is not reproducible.
The ability to do anything well co-evolves with finding good reasons to do it. In the case of writing it would be having things you strongly desire to write about.
Yes I'm sure this sort of thing will happen however I imagine the overall social consequences would be beneficial. Children are highly confined at present and the ability to roam and talk to different people, walk to school, etc, has been lost. Largely for fear of their being run over by traffic.
If and when all cars are computer-controlled another consequence may be that children will be free to roam about. This assumes that those same cars are built to be incapable of hitting pedestrians. Is this possible?
Yes, the ability to direct one's creativity is valuable and a hallmark of freedom. But the direction, if it is to be fruitful, is determined by what one finds genuinely interesting. This is in turn an impersonal property of those new ideas.
The guy who is hooked on a video games is less intentional. He thinks he ought to be able to will himself into doing other stuff which he thinks he should be doing. He blames the game or phone or whatever for his failure. But what he really doing is avoiding certain other problems. When he is ready he'll face those unmentioned problems and maybe find a new direction.
It seems to me (as an outsider) that people in the U.S.A. now more than ever judge the President for what he symbolises. Perhaps this explains the power of constitutional monarchy (not advocating one system over the other; just an observation).
By 'hard' problem I mean that it has depth, not that it's unpleasant. A stream of easy problems could work but it's less reliable because when there's a dry spell then outcome (1) will be scratching at the door.
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" -- JFK
This is a tricky topic because a free and creative person is mostly acting spontaneously so he cannot predict where his attention is going next. Go figure.
It seems to me that basic income could make me either (1) fall victim to depression, addiction, or some other mental disorder, or
(2) find a hard problem to work on which keeps me occupied and satisfied for a lifetime.