Nemi

So you bring up emulsifiers and in my opinion, that is one of the big baddy's in UPF. Yes, we have been using emulsifiers for centuries, but the effectiveness of modern emulsifiers is on another level then something like lecithin from soybeans. The strength and ubiquity of modern emulsifiers has completely changed the food we eat. They are almost literally in everything we eat today.

Why are they bad? What do emulsifiers do? They combine substances that don't want to be combined. What in your body might this affect? Your mucosal lining. Emulsifiers don't break down in your gut as they pass through. They just emulsify everything as they move through. Including your mucus. That layer is extremely important for a normally functioning gut. Lose it and then chime will contact the gut lining. This disrupts the microbiota and allows things to get through your gut that are not supposed to. It causes inflammation.

UPFs contain many bad things, but they HAVE to be categorized to fully appreciate the levels of badness. Some things are just not that big of deal, and the "health industry" does everyone a disservice by not clarifying it.

from bad to not as bad:

- Emulsifiers (e.g., Polysorbate 80/60/40, carboxymethylcellulose)

- some stabilizers/thickeners (e.g., carrageenan)

- artificial sweeteners

- refined sugars

- artificial colors/cosmetics

- other stabilizers/thickeners/emulsifiers (e.g., xanthan gum, guar gum, pectin, cellulose, lecithin)

I see this as consistent. When you say "I play the piano" you are really saying, "There are many instruments – banjo, trumpet, clarinet, and piano. I play the piano". Saying "I play a piano" is also correct. But the inference is that you are referring to one particular piano.

In the sentence "There is a piano in the lobby" you are saying "There are many objects in the lobby. Among them is a piano, one of many in the world".

I see this as consistent with other replies stating that The is something specific in a group, and A is an indeterminant one of many.

How can this be in your example? When I am saying "I went to the store", I am really saying "There are a group of locations that I could have gone. E.G., the car dealership, the bank, the museum, the store, or the office. I went to the store".

This is the answer. While it is very real to talk about "employee culture" as company culture, in this particular case, the "culture" I was talking about was from a corporate/investment/acquisition level. Howards job is not to understand how each company that BRK owns is run, that is the CEO's job. But Howards job is to look at BRK from a high level and make sure that the CEO is executing in the same way that Warren set up, namely – buying companies and stocks at a "fair" price or below, and not micromanaging the companies that they acquire. If the CEO is not living up to that, Howard's (and the board's) one card that they can play is to replace the CEO.

The Chairman position is to protect company culture, not make operational decisions.

Look, I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but Cook's job, being the CEO, is playing politics. It is literally part of the job. Making sure your company is not going to get legislated out of existence is one of the things you must do as CEO.

I would not want that job. As a matter of fact, as I started up the ladder in the company I was working for I realized that politics (internal and external) are a big part of the job and I was just not suited nor qualified for it, so I quit. But that is what CEO's must do if they want their company to be successful.

I love this.

As nerdy as it is, it is also an interesting historical look on how certain things in society/culture have a life that is hidden in plain view and quietly goes on. It is an interesting reflection on many things in life.

I run an ecommerce auction website on wordpress that is highly dynamic and can't be cached. Bots are a waste of cpu. I even turned off "prefetch" requests as I found that (android in particular) browsers will prefetch every auction item on the page as the user scrolls down the summary page looking at items.

I agree, it is an interesting thing to ponder. I often phrased it to myself that the cost of technical debt compounds the lower in the code stack you go.

Said another way, tech debt has a multiplicative factor the farther away from the end user you get. Tech debt in the database is worse than in the data layer. It is worse in the data layer than in the business logic. It is worse in the business logic than in the UI code. etc.

This is related to the fact that it gets exponentially more difficult to refactor code the farther away you get from the end user. Changing the database is usually more difficult and impacts more things than the data layer code. And on and on we go back up.

So beware, i setup my APP3 on my daughters ipad and had hearing aids set with a hearing test. This way when connecting to my Pixel it would still apply the hearing aid adjustments, but I would not have other things like auto-pause when removing the airpod.

Well, I installed this and now my hearing settings have been removed from the airpods. And I guess you could say that this would be obvious because librepods doesn't support the hearing aids, what is not obvious is that installing it takes a set of APP3 that has been already setup and basically wipes them. Good to know for the future

I agree. I see a lot of comments alluding to the 'regulations' being bad. They are there for a reason. To keep errant bankers from loaning out too much money and creating an even more fragile system.

People have to realize that banking as a business is inherently broken. It is about lending long and borrowing short, which is very risky. Deposits are used to provide funds to lend long, but deposits can be 'called' at any time. The loans cannot.

But banking is also critical for a properly functioning society. It is in the government's (the people's) best interest to have a robust banking system in place. How to reconcile the risk with the benefit? By heavily regulating it.

Prices are set at the margins

Another thing that I read about on this topic was that once a land lord has gotten into a groove of extend and pretend they lower their costs and cut out the overhead of property management. This means that if they took on one tenant they would have to ramp up property management costs (and potentially refurb/improvement costs) and they are not willing to do that, so you end up with the situation where you can't rent a property even if you want to.

Interesting. Prices, as they say, are set at the margins - so given that, what kind of liquidity is there? How many are transacting? If the price hasn't shifted from $16k, it could mean that everyone thinks they are worth $16k, OR it could mean that no one has bought one in years and the last transaction was $16k. Those are big differences.

50% is a stretch. 20% maybe, depending on the vehicle.

But here is another consideration. Sales tax. If I buy a car and trade one in, the sale price that I pay taxes on is the price of the vehicle I am buying minus the trade in.

For instance, if I buy a new car for $30,000 and trade in a vehicle and they give me $15k for it, I pay sales tax only on $15k. That saves me about $1k in my area in sales tax. If I could have sold the used car for over $16k, then I would technically be money ahead. But your time is also worth something. For it to be worth it to me, I would need to be able to get at least $17k for the used vehicle to make it worth the effort.

I read a comment once that referred to this as the "sad spaceship" sound and I can't stop thinking about it. So on point. I hate it.

I would term it a Depreciating Asset, like a car or a building. Bitrot is real.

ok, so please don't take this wrong, but that last sentence was such a non-sequitur that I think I know what at least some of your problem is talking to other people.

EDIT: wait, I am going to go out on a limb and say that you meant "I was in a car crash of a conversation one time and my buddies pulled up on the scene and gave me a ride home."

Thats funny because I thought it was shift-enter that creates a newline in a field where an enter submits. Just shows the fractured nature of this whole thing.

While what you say is often true, it is a different problem and does not change the fact of the prior posters.

It's called Tragedy of the Commons, and it is just how things are unfortunately. I don't like it either, but if it wasn't this guy it would be someone else.

It makes me wonder if this is B-roll footage for a news piece.

> selling an oversubscribed product with baked in usage assumptions is a functional business model in a lot of spaces

Being a common business model and it being functional are two different things. I agree they are prevalent, but they are actively user hostile in nature. You are essentially saying that if people use your product at the advertised limit, then you will punish them. I get why the business does it, but it is an adversarial business model.

> The subscription services have assumptions baked in about the usage patterns; they're oversubscribed and subsidized.

Selling dollars for $.50 does that. It sounds like they have a business model issue to me.

When you said this, lemming's all jumping off a cliff came to mind...

I've never been as scared in a car as I was in an Uber in Chicago going to the airport. That man drove around cars like we were bleeding out in his car and had to get to the hospital or someone was going to die.

I love this. Thank you for introducing me to "Norman Doors". I hadn't realized someone else had described this in such detail. I have been complaining about this years.

Ok this will be a tangent, but I also take this one step farther and also talk about "documentation". Just for the record, I don't think documentation is all good or all bad, but it definitely can be used incorrectly and in excess. And Norman Doors and a great way to get this point across.

When someone creates or installs a Norman Door by accident or out of ignorance and then realizes there is a problem, they often think "I know, I will document it!" and they add little placards to the door that says "Push/Pull" or some such. They see that this helps with a small subset of users and thinks "there, I fixed the problem, people just need to read the documentation and now it is their problem if they don't". But if you watch users of the door, a large portion will still use the door incorrectly because... people don't read documentation. If they don't read documentation, is it the users fault the door was designed incorrectly or was it the designers problem?

I use this as an example for my developers on thinking before documenting troublesome code or a confusing interface to first ask "can I design this so it is less confusing?" and if so, that would usually be preferable to adding documentation "to solve the problem". Well designed code (or doors) with no documentation always beats poor designs with documentation.

The point is that the 'maximum motivation level' for an employee is an inherent trait. It is a ceiling. Some people have high ceilings and some don't. If an employee has a low ceiling, no manager can motivate that employee higher.

But if someone has a high ceiling, the most a manager can do is create an environment that allows the employee to achieve their max potential. A bad manager on the other hand, can very easily bring a normally high-potential motivated employee down to mediocre levels.

If you are one of those self-aware leaders that knows how to create an environment where people can excel, then hiring highly motivated people is the winning strategy.

> In software I've heard "opinionated" about programs that limit configurability in favor of one fits all default

While this is one form of opinionated, it really just means that they are doing their own thing different from the other established players. This could mean MORE configurability in some cases. Another poster also said it, but opinionated just means that they have taken a stand in product design (features, looks, usability, etc) that they think it correct and it does not bow to 'the herd'. IMO, an opinionated design is neither good nor bad, but it is respected by me.

You've really hit the crux of the problem and why so many people have differing opinions about AI coding. I also find coding more fun with AI. The reason is that my main goal is to solve a problem, or someone else's problem, in a way that is satisfying. I don't much care about the code itself anymore. I care about the thing that it does when it's done.

Having said that I used to be deep into coding and back then I am quite sure that I would hate AI coding for me. I think for me it comes down to – when I was learning about coding and stretching my personal knowledge in the area, the coding part was the fun part because I was learning. Now that I am past that part I really just want to solve problems, and coding is the means to that end. AI is now freeing because where I would have been reluctant to start a project, I am more likely to give it a go.

I think it is similar to when I used to play games a lot. When I would play a game where you would discover new items regularly, I would go at it hard and heavy up until the point where I determined there was either no new items to be found or it was just "more of the same". When I got to that point it was like a switch would flip and I would lose interest in the game almost immediately.