Drill baby’s future, drill!

They kind of whitewashed eggs. I like TED ed, but this is a complex topic and they took the lazy way out. Exogenous cholesterol raises blood cholesterol levels in people who aren’t already “full” of cholesterol. This is how the egg industry papers mess with the science: they abuse the plateau or they bring in other cholesterol raising means (like eating more saturated fat).

Yes, testing tools needs their own studies to show accuracy, but they did offer proof for the accuracy of the classifier:

Fig. 2: Highly accurate classification of individual diet patterns based on gut microbial features.

Average ROC curves and AUCs showing the discrimination between all pairs of the three diet patterns (omnivores vs vegetarians; omnivores vs vegans; and vegetarians vs vegans) per cohort using random forest classifiers in a hybrid cross-LODO (Methods) approach. Shaded areas correspond to 95% CIs.

It’s about a microbial “test” to detect plant eaters, meat eaters, and dairy eaters. I’m not sure if we’ll ever get to use it to check on who’s cheating, but specialists can use it to track progress to a plant-based gut microbiome.

Trying to make time to read this…

For those who somehow don’t know yet, a lot of food related misinformation is spread in the context of “biohacking” and “weight loss” discourse. Other aspects related to the environment deal with pollution and greenwashing. Specifically to animal science, the misinformation surrounds the “human-like” capacities of non-human animals: sentience, intelligence, individuation, having social relationships (and a group), having a culture, and even feeling pain (nociception). The animal industry on the production side and ***consumers of animal meat (especially) have produced a vortex of misinformation on all these fronts, all in the name of justifying profits, taste pleasure and the feeling of human supremacy.

They form unions?

OK, finally got through it.

1. There is no perfect term to use. A term is infused with meaning by people over time, transforming like a fossilization process, but with culture.
2. If you agree that no perfect term can exist, perfect in that self-explanatory and “immortal definition” sense, then you have to agree that a lot of thought needs to go into how a term can be used and abused, how it can be shifted, how aesthetic it is, and so on. Those are jobs for writers and very creative people.
3. If you really want it to be big, the term probably needs to be internationalized. If your term is very ‘englishy’, then it’s no bueno. The term “vegan” at least sounds similar in many languages and is novel and short, two syllables, so it’s easy to learn and not confuse with others.

Sentientism and many like it are great, but those are more academic terms. It’s great if you read books, but look up the statistics on reading non-fiction non-self-help books.

Animalism does sound cool, but I can imagine 10 different ways it could wrong easily, including being subsumed into some weird primitivist human supremacism.

I’m vegan btw (for as long as it takes you to read this comment)

They were probably just waiting for a good pretext.

Moreover, despite the utter stupidity of the act itself, methods that are being used to carry out this mass slaughter are nothing short of horrendous: Dogs are being poisoned with strychnine—a deadly as well as painful chemical—shot in the streets among public, or are first captured with thorny metal clamps and then thrown into trucks to be disposed of, in quite the same fashion as used with plastic garbage. Many are left to suffer and die in agony, while others are taken to facilities where they are killed in brutal ways.

Eyewitnesses have described scenes of gunmen patrolling neighbourhoods, shooting dogs on sight, and leaving wounded ones to bleed out as they lie where they get shot. In some cases, dogs that, unluckily, survive the initial attack are beaten to death with shovels. The bodies are often dumped in mass graves, sometimes while the animals are still conscious.

Species “cleansing”

Risks and losses cannot be extinguished, they can only be transferred to others. This is the intrinsic limit of political fixes: we take the risks and losses and transfer them to others lacking the political power to contest the transfer.

It’s going to be the next big and serious political issue. Who gets bailed out?

I do wonder what the building cost differences are and if the costs are lowered by building denser urbanism instead of sprawl.

The esports athlete posture in a gaming chair, prolonged screen exposure, and hundreds of repetitive motions during gaming sessions are all contributing factors to development of … hazards [including] headache, dry eyes, visual strain, psychologic and behavior issues, cervical, thoracic and lumbar pain, overuse shoulder, elbow and wrist pathology, carpal tunnel syndrome, cubital tunnel syndrome, excess weight gain, gluteal and ischial pain, hamstring tightness, a rare incidence of deep vein thrombosis, and infectious surface contamination.

How much of that is already covered by “office welfare” medicine?

MADMONQ

Looks like an energy drink in a pill, part of the trend of “brain doping” with nootropics.

Is there a supplement for being sick and tired of all the “biohacking”?

Crowd-sourced debunking is no match for organized disinformation campaigns in the midst of information vacuums during a crisis. The conditions for the rapid and unchecked spread of misleading, and outright false, content could get worse with Meta’s content moderation policy and algorithmic changes.

sigh

Crowd-sourced isn’t going to work well. The crowd is too small; anyone who’s been dealing with the false skeptics of climate science for decades knows this, and it’s only escalating now with rising popular conspiracy theories bolstered by social media algorithms and engaging formats (like short videos).

The whole premise of this crowd-sourced debunking is based on the idea that there are a lot of smart people out there with a lot of free time. Of course, getting paid would add another layer of problems to it as it look like a conflict of interests.

We need to demand moderation and “clean information” like we demand clean water. If the providers are failing to deliver, they need to face serious legal threats for it. And if that means shutting down social media platforms, then that’s the rational thing to do.

edit: And if the problem is that the providers are providing “for free”, then we need to make sure that this business models faces the consequences. Get them to pay users for the information if the business is based on monetizing information. In that case, they won’t want “more engagement” and “more users” so much. If not, well, systems for more safe and secure subscriptions should help.

Make them smaller, lighter, fewer wheels, and add two pedals.

Why Norway is rethinking its reliance on electric cars | Vox

It would also be nice of Norway to stop exporting so much oil.

The exact same argument could be made about there being no need to eat vegetables or fruit; carnivore diet isn’t healthy, but it won’t literally kill you. To be clear I’m not making that argument personally though, vegan diet is less unhealthy than carnivore diet obviously.

The exact same argument can be made by anyone profoundly ignorant, sure. Not you, of course. Right? The scientific evidence about a “carnivore diet” is close to zero, it’s a joke. It’s like the scientific evidence concerning an “all cheese diet” or an “all snickers diet”. You don’t get to declare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation here.

Too much red meat can be bad for you, but that is not the ame statement as any at all is bad for you.

Low doses usually have low effects. But you don’t know the maximum dose either, you’re just doing the “the truth is somewhere in the middle” pseudoscience shtick.

Animal flesh, meat, is presented by carnivores as a necessary and vital nutrient. If one used that ketone fueled brain harder, one would understand that the science proves that it’s not.

The trend for meat consumption is bad for long-term health in the science. The trend for plant consumption, especially whole foods, is good for long-term health in the science. Do you understand what this dose-response aspect is?

You’re literally arguing for some “low dose” case for meat, and that itself is a counter-argument against eating meat. Animal flesh isn’t some rare vitamin in a dose so small that it fits between your teeth, it is consumed in large chunks of mass, supposedly filling up your stomach. Some people consume some bits of organs of animals, especially as health supplements, hoping to get health boosts; they’re fools and it’s a scam, but that’s a “low dose” situation of animal consumption. With meat, muscle and adipose tissue is what we’re referring to, and that is sold by larger mass units of measurements, something that matches the volumes of our stomachs.

When you argue for a low dose of what some people consider a staple, you’re already accepting that it’s not necessary.

But i also know you’ve heard this countless times and will just hit back with “but I don’t eat meat and I’m healthy!!!”

Really? Countless? I literally know 1 other vegan and 1 vegetarian. My anecdote cancels yours.

There is literally no need to eat meat. There isn’t some magical balance, the research on healthy longevity makes it pretty clear that more plants is good and less meat is good, as overall rules.

The “carnivore” fans aren’t relying on research, they’re reading tangential papers like reading tea leaves to divinate the truth. It’s a closer to alchemy and witchcraft, but they call it “biohacking”.

Demented bacon eaters does sound like an apt outcome.

Try walnut butter.

Where are biohackers being booed the most?