HN user
It's a problem when "philosophers" opine on physics without understanding physics very well
It's also a problem when physicists make assertions of fact on consciousness and psychology without understanding consciousness or psychology very well (which no one does).
Relatedly, there is evidence that ketogenic (which are fasting mimicking) diets can be helpful:
https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/news/keto-diet-prevents-early....
https://ncats.nih.gov/news-events/news/ketogenic-diet-alzhei...
It's not so much "low carb" as it is avoiding the sugar junkie culture that pervades the Standard American Diet.
Keto can be an effective acute intervention against type 2 diabetes, but then one might add carbs back in to a reasonable level, but not the poisonous level of the Standard American Diet.
See also: the American Heart Association.
At a macroeconomic level - disease yields substantially higher profits than health in our current model.
We need to have limits on what we allow our brain to process the same way we do for our body with ultra-processed foods by avoiding fast food restaurants
This is a great analogy.
Fast information dis-eases our minds as fast food diseases our body.
Couldn't think of a more efficient way to manufacture ADHD
Ketones have been shown to reduce oxidative stress and inflammation in the brain. We've known for a hundred years that it can be effective at treating epilepsy, and increasing evidence is mounting that it can be helpful for Alzheimer's, mental illness, and many other diseases.
It's weird that there is such a stigma surrounding keto.
Yes, early humans were likely carrion feeders among other dietary strategies. Archaeological and anthropological evidence suggests that before developing tools and techniques for hunting, early hominins would have scavenged carcasses left by predators. This behavior would have allowed them to access a high-quality source of nutrients like protein and fat, which are crucial for brain development.
The use of tools made from stones to break open bones for marrow and to possibly butcher animals suggests that early humans exploited carcasses that they found or scavenged from other predators' kills. Marrow and brain tissue, which could be accessed by breaking open bones and skulls, are highly nutritious and would have been valuable food sources for early humans.
Over time, as hominins developed more sophisticated tools and techniques, they likely became more efficient hunters, gradually shifting from scavenging to actively hunting for their food. However, the practice of scavenging would have played a critical role in the dietary habits of early human ancestors and contributed to their evolutionary success.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/5/394/2754213
carion, most raw meat (if we ate what dogs ate, we'd have constant stomach issues...)
Humans have extremely acidic stomach acid (1.5 - 3.5 pH), close to that of vultures and dogs (1 - 2 pH).
Early humans and their predecessors, were very likely (at least partially) carrion feeders, and consumed raw meat for millions of years before they started cooking.
That's only because we have no way to measure it, not because it's not also a physical problem
People say the same thing about God.
Measurability is a fundamental requirement of science for something to be tested or studied systematically.
Diabetes is a biological disease which can be objectively proven and diagnosed based on biological tests.
There are no objective biological diagnostic criteria for anything in the DSM.
"psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests" -Allen Frances, The New Crisis of Confidence in Psychiatric Diagnosis
As mentioned by light_hue_1:
Effect sizes were small (largest peak d, 0.15).
It also doesn't look like they considered what effect a daily prescription of ADHD medications might have on brain connections versus the inherent condition itself.
Why is Monsanto continuing to make such unscientific claims then?
while completely ignoring the effects of NOT making a change
The completely hypothetical effects of not making a change in just one area of virology research which is highly criticized by many in the scientific community.
It's hilariously absurd to compare people who don't want a dual use bioweapons research facility in their neighborhood to NIMBYism.
NIMBYism != People being concerned about their neighbors possessing weapons of mass destruction/super viruses capable of killing them and millions/billions of other people.
There are plenty of people who work in remote locations like Antarctica, and few if any of them make such grandiose claims as these virologists who think their work will save millions of lives.
If they can't be bothered to work in a safely remote location then they don't actually believe in their work and are blind to the risks and history of lab leaks.
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
Why do you think the jury ruled the way it did then?
The thinking is that a disproportionate amount of industrial agriculture is done in support of cattle farming
Why is that the thinking?
I've read that 86% of cattle feed is byproducts from industrial agriculture that is inedible to humans.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sacredcow.info/blog/qz6pi6c...
Indeed, there are many who make so much noise made about how unsustainable and environmentally toxic industrial cattle farming is, but then it's crickets when it comes to how unsustainable and environmentally toxic industrial agriculture is.
When it comes to toxic industrial chemicals, it's innocent until proven guilty... 50 years and millions of diseases and deaths later
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/10/637722786/jury-awards-termina...
"We are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family," Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement following the verdict. "Today's decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews ... support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson's cancer."
He confirmed the company will appeal the decision "and continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40-year history of safe use and continues to be a vital, effective, and safe tool for farmers and others."
"Safe and effective"
Reminds me of when teachers told students not to use Wikipedia for research purposes.
only possible because of crypto
Marcus Hutchins: Why Destroying Bitcoin Wouldn't Stop Corporate Ransomware
"there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail"
-Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9/11 commission
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commis....
Also Lee Hamilton:
As chairman of the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (1987), Hamilton chose not to investigate President Ronald Reagan or President George H. W. Bush, stating that he did not think it would be "good for the country" to put the public through another impeachment trial.[5] Hamilton was later chair of the House October Surprise Task Force (1992).
Sorry, there is only one dimension of reality.
How do you know that?
One does have to wonder why we need to medicate ourselves to cope with reality rather than change reality instead.
Psychedelic therapy can reveal things about your reality that you may have been completely blind to or unaware of, thus enabling you to change it.
To use these substances properly, it's not just about taking the substance and having an enlightening experience and then being done with it.
It's about taking what you learned about your reality, what you want to change about it, and then integrating/implementing that into your every day life in the weeks, months, and years afterwards. That's where the real work is.
Are there any particular sections in the paper which were alarming to you?
The liberal insists on a bill of rights which will rigidly protect the individual and the minority against encroachments by the government and those elected to exercise power.
But the liberal does not stop here. He insists that the government shall also have and exercise power to see that the rights of the individual and of minorities are not encroached upon by private economic power.
Indeed, it seems like an easy problem on paper, but the problem is only growing worse. Why is that?
I find it curious that the climate change issue gets far more attention than the ever increasing, far more lethal and imminently threatening epidemics of chronic disease