HN user
Boston, MA: https://www.streetaccount.com/careers.aspx
StreetAccount provides real-time news and data to institutional investors. We're a small but feisty company that has seen great success. We're most urgently looking for some good people with SQL Server experience. You can email me at kzaragoza@streetaccount.com if you have any questions.
You can trust them to continue diving into the science of nutrition. The interesting thing about this whole episode is that it serves as a wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method.
Consider what's happened: First, health authorities made observations about diets and various diseases, creating hypotheses along the way. Next, they gathered some data and analyzed it. They drew conclusions from that data and made recommendations based on those conclusions.
Over time, more observations were made. More hypotheses were developed, more data was collected and analyzed, and the conclusions changed. This is the nature of science. We make decisions based on what we know at the time. If new evidence is found, we revise our theories and make different recommendations.
I think there is a problem, but it doesn't lie with the health authorities themselves. (Not that there aren't problems in the health field, but that's for another discussion.) Instead, the problem lies in how various other authorities use the information provided by the health professionals.
As the information and recommendations make their way through government, the issue becomes politicized, and politics frequently wins out over science. As the information is reported by the mainstream press, it is also sensationalized and frequently blown out of proportion. Going by the headlines in many publications, everything that is bad for you becomes good for you and vice versa every few years.
Rarely, if ever, do you see an attempt at understanding nutrition, the nature of the scientific process behind the recommendations, or a call for simple moderation. Yet that's what we need. We need government officials who are willing to listen carefully to the health professionals without allowing lobbyists to influence their decisions. (Corn sugar? Really?) We also need a press that is willing to educate the public rather than simply splash attention-getting headlines and content-free articles everywhere.
I doubt we'll see either of these things happen in our lifetimes, so it's up to us to educate ourselves, our families, and each other. Then, maybe, we'll start eating right and enjoy a healthy life.
I don't understand this winner-take-all mentality around programming languages. Why "switch?" Why not instead simply add another tool to your toolbox? I like having a myriad of languages and libraries at my disposal. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Understanding those allows you to choose the best tool for the job at hand.
One thing we need to learn to accept is that no tool is ever perfect. What is optimal for building applications may get in the way when doing embedded work. An outstanding teaching language may not be efficient enough for experts. There are many different situations we'll encounter as programmers. Not every can be resolved with the same set of tools, so the more we have available (and understand!), the better.