johnwilkesbooth

> No distinction between categorical data and strings. R thinks your strings are categories, and Pandas thinks your categories are strings.

I think this is more of an R-ism than a standardization issue. Strings are a pretty universal data type, where as categorical data (factors) are mostly specific to the domain of statistical modeling. IMO Python is doing the correct thing here. Personally I find factors to be more trouble than they are worth, and fortunately `data.table::fread` mimics Python in this regard.

> That is rather rude

Not my intention at all, and honestly I don't see how my comment conveys this.

> Your single data point

Sure, plus the countless others who lead a healthy, low-carb lifestyle.

> 99.9% of humans that ever lived included various sources of carbs in their diets (save famine and other such events), and our bodies have evolved to support such diets

My point wasn't that carbs preclude you from leading a healthy lifestyle, hut rather that they aren't necessarily for leading a healthy lifestyle, as OP's remark suggested.

> We're here because our ancestors ate carbs

Not "because", but "in spite of the fact".

> You should make it clear that you're pushing a position based on your opinion

I'm not "pushing" anything, merely citing a personal experience (my experience, not my opinion).

> your body needs a fair amount of carbs every day, and people are cutting bad carbs without replacing them with good carbs, and thus experiencing an inescapable craving for carbs.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true. Since switching to a ketogenic several months ago I have maintained a very low (< 15g / day) net carb intake and not only have I not experienced any adverse effects from this, I feel much better (better mood, more energy, less hunger cravings) overall. I should also point out that I am a very active person as well (yoga & Crossfit daily), implying that a high fat diet is suitable (in terms of energy requirements) for maintaining an active lifestyle.

Any thoughts on rewriting iTerm2 in Rust?

> The most sensible thing to do is to kill Go, not to improve it.

Care to expand this? It's pretty clear that you don't find Go suitable for your own use cases, but I've found it to be an extremely productive language, despite the fact that it may have a couple of warts.