elhudy

>I'd say "enormous" requires some evidentiary proof. Obviously there is fraud and waste. But almost all large scale systems have that. We should certainly try to minimize it wherever we can but I don't think "waste and fraud exist" are a reason to not pursue a path.

Are you living in the same country as the rest of us? There is plentiful evidence of the enormous fraud and waste. It’s not even a point of debate anymore.

Glad you’re feeling better, but you could have just stopped at increase fiber intake and decrease red meat and alcohol consumption. None of the rest is linked to colorectal cancer, certainly not mayonaise, which is just oil and egg.

Is it really that simple though? Aren’t there cases where if those same people would otherwise be unemployed, society might be better off having the perks of that business’ existance, and subsidizing those workers up to a living wage using tax $?

In the case of this style of korean soy sauce, it is actually fungal enzymes from molds that colonized the meju slowly breaking down the proteins and starches over time, whilst being protected from outside forces by high salinity water. I realize you said "et al." but I couldn't help myself. There's very little bacterial activity going on in there.

Eh, it depends what you mean by traditional. Ramen is "traditional" in japan, but it was invented in the early 1900s. Similarly, since wheat wasn't commonly imported into japan prior to the 1800s, most actually old tradition recipes didn't contain wheat either.

I didn’t read the entire article and i am not a physician.

That said, your point #2 sounds incorrect - aspartame doesn’t cause atherosclerosis, it aggravates atherosclerosis. The key difference there as it relates to type 2 diabetes patients is that presumably if they had atherosclerosis as an existing condition, they would qualify for a glp-1 with cvd benefits, and not be on sulfonylureas in the first place.

Maybe, but thats a different argument from “your reminder that economic sanctions does nothing but starve ordinary people…”

No, it isn’t, as described by the divergent strengths of the two.

I don’t get why you’re trying to characterize NKs military as strong when it is objectively not so. The goal for stability in the region is for SK to have a stronger military. If we want to look at whether sancions have progressed that goal, then we would need to evaluate the relative strength of the two since the time sanctions went into place. How large of a standing army they have is not your kpi

I thought the context of the previous response was that sanctions do nothing to the regime i.e. in terms of strengthening, weakening, or getting rid of. The North korean dictatorship remains in place so that is agreeable. However, North korean military presence (seen as distinct from the regime presence) has seemingly faltered dramatically.

Preventing the north korean regime from having the funds to grow its military presence seems like a fair use of economic sanctions to me - sadly, even if there is an economic cost to its people.

The context of this discussion is that regardless of who is in office, there is an overspending problem. So it doesn’t exactly bear itself worth repeating here.

Pediatric patients likely make up the vast minority of the measure in question.

“ One indicator of flu activity is the percentage of doctor’s office visits driven by flu-like symptoms.”

Sounds like it could also be a measure of post-covid paranoia.

GPOs are reasonably large and capable

They only offer to rebook you on a flight in their own fleet though. E.g. i have been canceled on united due to “bad weather” halfway through a segment and was made to wait 4 days until the next united flight (there was a huge backlog). Instead, since i was stranded and absolutely needed to get to my destination, i had to buy a delta flight leaving that same night for $700 more than market value. United refused to compensate me for this. It’s bullshit.

Edit: oh by the way, i didn’t get refunded for the segment that flew me across the nation just to stand me in denver. The refund was prorated And only counted for the second segment.

Anyone who doesn’t think airlines need more regulations on cancellations and refunds clearly hasn’t flown regularly.

> In fact, life expectancy is lower in the US than it is in, even the UK, at every income level. So for some level of medical care you may actually do better outside.

This only makes sense if one assumes a society’s medical care is the main driver of its population’s life expectancy rating.

The ease of making your way across the US into different jurisdictions is probably a contributing factor. I imagine the geographical equivalent of this story would be a person from portugal driving their way across europe and landing in poland where they live out the rest of their lives under a different identity. It’s a lot tougher to do that when you’re crossing into a new country, culture, language entirely. And portugal is small enough that it would be very difficult to pull off within the confines of the country.

There is nothing inherently wrong with highly-processed food. For one, the term "highly-processed" is often loosely used and subjectively defined. This is apparent in the fact you think canned foods are unhealthy, whereas the commenter responding to you sees nothing wrong with pasteurizing food in cans.

For two, highly-processed foods can contain nutritional value, the two aren't mutually exclusive. If the battle is against foods with little nutritional value then then just say that. "Highly-processed" is such a red herring in the nutrition industry.

They would use bovada, which was the solution before sports betting became legalized.

If youre so certain about your ability to find long term studies on the consumption of micro-pieces of toilet paper or gasoline, then surely you can find one on plastic ;).

Not many have their hair on fire. People just want to make a conscious effort to avoid what common sense says to avoid.

Even if there weren’t any studies on the harmful effects of plastic consumption (which I’m fairly certain there are at least theoretical mechanistic studies if you make the effort to look for them), it makes common sense to try to avoid that, no?

I don’t think there are any studies on the effects of regularly drinking gasoline or eating toilet paper either, but plastic, gasoline, and toilet paper consumption aren't exactly time-tested foods that propelled civilization forward.

I was always under the impression that the purpose of soap isn’t to kill bacteria/viruses as the article implies, but to wash those thing off of your hands.

Was my impression wrong?

Here is Biden’s actual response:

“The border wall. The money was appropriated for the border wall. I tried to get them to reappropriate to redirect that money. They didnt. They wouldn’t. And in the meantime theres nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated. I cant stop that.”

“Do you believe the border wall works?”

“No.”

The biden administration then proceeded to waive 26 federal laws for the department of homeland security to continue to build the border wall. Let’s break this down for a second.

What would have happened had the administration not waived the federal laws preventing continued expansion of the wall? Unless i am mistaken, unspent budget allocated to the wall would have returned to the department of treasury to balance the budget / return to taxpayers.

So either:

-Biden does not believe that the border wall works, but would still *spend that allocated money on something he does not believe works*, rather than allow that money to flow back to the dept. of treasury…

OR

-Biden does believe that the border wall works, and is lying through his teeth.

At this point, i am not even sure which of these two realities i believe. They are both pretty depressing.

In my personal case, it has been an investment my colleagues have made in me that has paid significant dividends. I can now quickly take huge loads of work off their backs, and have more than made up for a a few interruptions or conversations during lunch / after work.

Sure you could argue that the same investment could be made remote. But the reality is people are more likely to be walking their dogs or cooking lunch, and that’s why they wont have time for you.

At the end of the day it’s not really about whether YOU benefit or not during work hours, its about whether the organization benefits. They’re paying the bills for your stretch of time. But even if it was all about you and your protected time, theres an argument to be made that you benefit as well in the long run.

I get the sentiment but this reads more like an angry tirade than anything. I would probably be better off with my five minutes back. But now i feel obligated to respond.

As someone new to my organization and team I’ve greatly benefited from a partial rto mandate. There’s something about being able to quickly bounce ideas or questions off a team that physically sits around you that slack can’t quite emulate. There are productive discussions that happen which simply would not have otherwise happened. Teams become closer as they better understand each other and get to know what motivates one another (not always the paycheck, as in OP case). You become more empowered to take a step back out of your daily work and give consideration to the bigger picture when you’re surrounded by other groups.

I’ve worked remotely most of my life and am a proponent of it. I also think moving someone who was hired as a remote employee, to an in-person role, is a huge dick move. But to pretend like there are no benefits to occasionally being in-person seems like naivety bordering ignorance (For most team based roles which require strategic thinking).

Hiring can become a bigger challenge when your competition allows fully remote work, and companies should expect to increase compensation in one form or another, or otherwise lose talent. For some companies, e.g. mine, those steps have been worth taking. Small price to pay to preserve our awesome culture.

Exactly! Just like how all of the “experts” liked blade-ground coffee when it was blindly tested (https://youtu.be/O7LAzSKgeoQ?feature=shared), in what seems to be the only blind test that brings together experts on the internet. They liked it, so that’s what counts.

It’s easy to like something though when that something’s “taste” (when drilled down into the realm of unrealities) is largely social. That’s why John Manzo noted as such in coffee, connoisseurship, and an ethnomethodologically-informed sociology of taste.

https://philpapers.org/rec/MANCCA-3

No, in my home coffee nerd experience the realized size distribution across multiple grinders is minimal enough that it has no effect on flavor profile. When all other variables are controlled, of course ;).

Look I hope I’m not insulting your profession but controlling the 5 or so variables that go into brewing good coffee is not exactly rocket science. To claim to be an expert in it is akin to claiming you are an expert in sharpening knives or picking a lock. It’s something basically anybody can take up, the rules for success follow a general formula, and if you experiment just outside of this formula you’ll find the way that works best for you. Hell, even the prices of growing, preparing (fermentation), and roasting coffee beans is infinitely more complex than the brewing process imo.

So no, the fact that you claim to have spent a decade professionally controlling the water temperature, bean roast,ratio, brew time & process, and grind level, does not make you any more knowledgable than any one of the other million nerds (including myself) who do this on a daily basis as well. Yes, controlling all of the variables when taste testing is obvious to most coffee geeks (people responding here). Americas test kitchen has been doing this for decades with recipes that have many more variables than the coffee brewing process.

No, those variables are probably not easily identified by the average home coffee maker. That’s because the average coffee maker is a boomer with a keurig. I still don’t think it was a particularly insightful comment though, regardless of this fact. This forum is not made of keurig drinking boomers.

This entire paragraph reads “because the experts say so”. As an avid coffee drinker and experimenter for many years now I’d challenge you to question that “more unimodal grind distribution” effect on pour overs especially as it relates to very minor differences in distributions measured across grinders.