accoinstereo

> "My conclusion was that cancer is best prevented by removing negatives from life, not necessarily adding positives."

But diet is a complex system. So while there might not be any magical "direct" benefit from eating a certain fruit or vegetable, they could still produce a significant positive effect.

Perhaps the biggest contribution to preventing cancer that fruits and veggies make is to curb negative behavior. They might replace sugary foods or regulate cravings or satiate (all interrelated). And then, this could feed back into promoting positive behavior: more energy which encourages more rigorous exercise. Which boosts the subject's mood and increases their sense of well-being. Which feeds back into their dietary choices. Etc.

Sure, you'd act real careful to protect the sanctity of your word.

But bear in mind this man leads two multimillion dollar companies. I can imagine the PR/marketing opportunity was difficult to pass up. Even if further data proves his assessment of Boeing's configuration ill-advised, a majority of impressions will remain in his favor. He may have even nipped any comparisons between Boeing's "dangerous" technology and Tesla in the bud.

A reader might walk away from the story with the idea that Tesla engineers are more skilled than Boeing engineers. Call it what you want, but that's a helluva branding opportunity.

The screens might be social. But they're able to only fill a limited facet of human social need.

The value that I derive from an email with an old friend is different than a phone call which is different still from a lunch.

Our social needs are deeply intertwined with our DNA. And the emotional value we can derive from interacting digitally does not meet the full extent that we derive from physical interaction.

Hence, I would argue that someone that lives on the web all day with thousands of people in mostly physical isolation will find less social fulfillment than someone that lives amongst a handful of humans with little connection to the outside world.

The more data they can associate with a given user the better.

Simply not true.

Marijuana has been decriminalized in California since 2010. The proposition to legalize the drug failed to pass. But I would hardly call this "backward momentum." It's not like there was a ton of incentive for Joe Pot to rally behind the move--cheap prescriptions, cheap dispensaries, and cheap penalties is keeping him plenty happy and stocked.

There was no such "cracking down" in Amsterdam. And I would hardly call what happened in the Netherlands "cracking down." Many cities were weary of tourists entering the country simply to get high. So those cities combatted the "anti-social" tourist by requiring marijuana IDs at their coffeeshops. Citizens are free to use, but unless other countries adopt legalization laws in the Euro Zone some Dutch cities feel they must enforce these policies.

Will be interesting to see how Colorado/Washington deal with this, as they will likely encounter the same issue. If I lived in a border city like Vancouver, I'd be prepping for an influx in 2014.

There is a large incentive to prescribe, but it's quite different from the examples you gave.

The CannaMed doctor doesn't stand to make more money off of you. But he stands to build a reputation as one who hands out the Rx.

People seeking cards aren't going to visit a prescriber who is notoriously stingy.

> Second, the weight loss? Not as big a deal as time goes on.

Sure, deciding to bike commute isn't a guarantee of sustainable weight loss. But no single activity is. Combine its caloric deficit with a sensible health plan and you'll reap its benefits.

You dream every night (several times, actually) in REM, you just only remember it once a month. If you journal the times that you do remember your dreams, it could help you remember more. You can also still use the various tricks to "check" if you're dreaming and achieve lucidity in a dream that would have otherwise been forgotten

Today's hyper-connectivity is damaging to relationships. Services like Facebook help us keep tabs on friends, not keep in touch with them. This false sense of proximity is dangerous, and I've personally witnessed it gradually rot away meaningful friendships of mine.

So I hacked together Pactt. Would love to hear your feedback on the MVP, below or via feedback [at] pactt.co.

False.

Facebook's primary goal is to get its users to share more and more over time (see Zuck's law).

Stories such as this--watch what you share on Facebook irregardless of your privacy settings--are detrimental to that goal. They must put the kibosh on such behavior fast and early.

This. It's completely nonsensical to chastise the public for mourning someone disproportionately. Had Dennis passed a year from now, would this article have been written? This reasoning slips into the unproductive paradigms that elitists subscribe to to feel better about themselves. Are Ritchie's and Job's legacies inseparable? Yes. Does that mean their work is to be valued by precedence? No more than the likes of Tesla and Edison.

I appreciate the insight to Ritchie's immortal legacy. But basing legacies on such logic quickly deteriorates into gibberish.

But all those innovations were inevitable! So, you know, the Romans surely don't deserve any credit.

This article doesn't say anything, as much as it tries to. Without considering the different populations that use each search engine, the numbers are meaningless. Get back to me when they do some proper normalization.