It can be legitimately unclear. Relatively-advanced technology being available to early humans is remarkable. Likewise, achieving difficult tasks without the relatively-advanced technology is remarkable. Some prototypical examples of this:
- Incan stonework with stones 'perfectly' cut to fit without mortar -- did they have advanced tools to support that? Or just persistence?
- Greek fire -- is there some lost mechanism here? Or just the growth of legends?
- the pyramids (I think not so controversial among academics, but certainly in pop culture)
I want to be as polite as possible, but explain the confusion that timerol was experiencing, just in case it was unclear. Because the article's focus is about the oldest "sophisticated drilling tool", and your comment said "Indian carpenters always had ...", the implication is that you're disagreeing with the article being discussed. The information you share is interesting, but it's slightly off topic from the main point of discussion (ie, the age of sophisticated tooling). You can avoid confusion like this by explicitly acknowledging when you're going to go off-topic. Eg, you could say "Not related to the age of the tool, but I saw similar tools used in India -- Indian carpenters always had..." I hope that explanation is polite and maybe helpful :). Apologies if I over-explained.
My general approach to medicine is -- do your best to avoid hospitals and procedures, but use them when they are needed. My reasoning is that not only are there these 'active' harms, but there's also just incidental things like staff that's too tired, antibiotic-resistant disease strains, poor sleep conditions, etc. Am I off-base with this? I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Yeah, even 30 years ago I had farmers around me closing down because their about 400 acres wasn't enough to make any useful amount of money on. Under 100 isnt enough for any sort of row crops to even pay for tractor and impliment maintence.
You would need super specialize production of lower volume products. Flowers, maybe rarer berries, otherwise you just have a large garden that lets you sell some corn and pumpkins on a road stand to offset some fertilizer costs.
Twenty grandchildren are splitting whatever the grandparents had left. But that didn't occur to lots of people, who are unfamiliar with such events as land-inheritance.
Around me, cranberries are another crop where large farms will own thousands of acres. And there are some large dairies that grow the food for their herds as well as give them grazing space. There are no lack of commodity farmers in my state, but you are right that I appreciate those who grow food more.
I am very interested in understanding what happened at Amazon, partially because I worked there and I loved many aspects of my first years. But I'm not convinced Mark is correct about the causes. I joined amazon devices (under the group that is now the consumer robotics org) in 2020, before Bezos had left, and I have two contrasting feelings about it. First, it was exciting, and seemed like a place you could do great things. But second, it was obvious to me that we had made many many clearly bad business decisions, even while Bezos was still at the wheel. At great expense, we made Astro, which was basically Wall-E without arms, or if you prefer, a robot dog. It wasn't useful. I would complain to coworkers that it wasn't useful, and they'd say "nobody thought the iphone was useful at launch either". I think this betrays/betrayed a damning lack of understanding about the product and the problem space. I was not involved in the market research, but I cannot believe that the failure was unforeseeable.
I don't have great on the ground knowledge of all of Amazon's endeavors, but at least in my experience on the consumer robotics org, I feel the failure was _not_ a risk averse attitude, but rather a cavalier attitude towards business ("of course we'll succeed, because robots!"). And it wasn't the absence of Bezos that led to the fall -- the fall was already beginning before he left. Personally I suspect Bezos stepped away because he could feel the trajectory tilting downwards, rather than the downward trend happening because of Bezos leaving. What caused that trajectory to tilt downwards? I really feel I don't know.
Actually beef farmers are getting squeezed by the giant packing firms. Beef prices being as high as they are hasn't actually resulted in better living for beef farmers.
(As a native Iowan i am unfortunately more plugged into this than I'd like to be. Don't get me wrong, many beef farmers are sucked into the Fox News machine and shit, but only major corporations are happy with the state of affairs rn)
It's not rationalizing, this is what they mean. It's always been meat, specifically beef. And policy wise it's opposed to laws and initiatives that end subsidies for beef, seek to discourage red meat consumption, or account for the environmental impact of beef production.
They framed it as a the war on protein so that any bill concerned with beef could be countered with, "so you're against protein rich diets for Americans?!" Not only are the liberals going to take away your steak but now they're also responsible for the health crisis as well as why our men aren't tough and strong.
I laughed out loud at this. Americans eat more protein than any group of people in history. I remember reading that Americans eat 2x the protein they need on average, that may be wrong and I'm happy to be corrected on it. It's so typical of RFKs nonsense. He can't just do the right thing, he has to add his insanity on top of it. Yes. Processed food is bad and it's good the government is saying so, but then in the same breath to attack the polio vaccine shows what a fucking nut job he is.
> I remember reading that Americans eat 2x the protein they need on average
Not anymore, because the new recommendations (1.2–1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day) are up to double the old recommendations (0.80 g of good quality protein/kg bodyweight/d - https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/10490/chapter/12).
I have no idea which one is better for the average person, just thought this was funny. If everyone is eating double the recommendation, just double the recommendation, problem solved.
According to Grok, it's (probably) way more than 3x.
I haven't bothered checking with reliable sources but according to Grok, the average American consumes 3.2x the required amount of proteins from animal produces alone.
This is wrong. Protein displaces other macros, ie carbs and fat. We get too much fat and carbs.
A very good balanced take on the new guidelines can be found on “talking with docs” YouTube channel. Even the vegetarian doc agrees with prioritizing protein over carbs and fat. The big disagreement they have is the emphasis on the food industry, especially meat and dairy.
Growing up, I was taught the grains were at the bottom of the food pyramid. I actually agree that the new food pyramid is a right step when it comes to nutrition
Sure, except this is the first time in my life I've seen the term "pulse" used for a vegetable. And, honestly, only in the last 10 years have I been hearing the term legume in common conversation. Grain is definitely the more common term.
T-Y-R is also the root in semitic languages (eg, Hebrew and Arabic) related to flying! Maybe not on purpose, but I really like that incidental connection, given the combined reputation of rust and GPU operations for being fast.
Edit: apparently T-Y-R is not a root relating to flight in Hebrew! Maybe other Semitic languages, Im not sure. In Arabic it certainly is
Oh sorry, i thought it was also in Hebrew but it looks like it is not. I would expect the same root to show up in other Semitic languages, but at least in Arabic it’s
ChatGPT claims that the same or similar root does exist in the meaning "bird" or "to fly" in a lot of other Semitic languages. Interestingly, it also claims that there is some correspondence in Hebrew, in the noun תור (tor) that represents a specific kind of bird (turtledove).
#/media/File:USDA_Food_Pyramid.gif){kind=link}
woah that's crazy, I was not aware of this. That's like 36 weeks of aggressive weight loss.
edit: Looks like it lasted 5 months (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1984%...).
reply