In other news today...
-
@Nagesh said in In other news today...:
World's biggest statue at the price of $182 million
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/world/asia/india-worlds-tallest-statue.html
Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just whip it out?
-
@Karla They're Asian.
-
Linus is now polite
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Bad news. A new study says your black coffee cravings might make you a psychopath.
Why is that bad news?
-
Another product joins the line of complete meals:
-
@anonymous234 That’s some expensive Nutella they got there. And considering that Nutella is already scrap to begin with...
Expensive, delicious scrap...
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
And not, y'know, because of an overly-large diet of high-calorie junk food, lack of exercise, and general lack of parental oversight and discipline in these matters?
-
@Nagesh said in In other news today...:
World's biggest statue at the price of $182 million
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/world/asia/india-worlds-tallest-statue.html
Twice the Size of Lady Liberty
No, it's twice the height of Liberty and her pedestal, so it's much larger than 2× bigger.
a leader of the Indian independence movement who helped wrest the country from British control.
wrest
What? Did India, like, fight a war against the British Empire to gain their independence, or something?
-
@anonymous234 said in In other news today...:
Another product joins the line of complete meals:
Spread one teaspoon (33g) onto 80g of bread (roughly 1/3 of a loaf)
So, uh... that little goop goes on how much bread†? And it's expected to be a full meal?
† In slices, not crazy European hipster units.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
So, uh... that little goop goes on how much bread†? And it's expected to be a full meal?
They must have tiny loaves if 80g is 1/3 of a loaf. A typical loaf here is 800g, which is 18/20 slices.
-
Reminds me of one particular Scrooge McDuck comic:
-
-
@Nagesh said in In other news today...:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/world/asia/india-worlds-tallest-statue.html
Don't know why you'd want to put up a statue honoring Unity. She was kind of a bitch to Stella Maris.
-
@Karla I was hoping someone would.
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
Just do what we do, and use gas!
-
@Nagesh said in In other news today...:
World's biggest statue at the price of $182 million
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/world/asia/india-worlds-tallest-statue.html
Time to rebuild the Statue of Liberty, I guess.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@cvi Interesting, just last Monday I've heard "neuromorphic computing" the first time and wondered if that's what @dkf is doing.
I'm fairly certain that's what most thinking things are doing...
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Quick survey: who here drinks black coffee?
I abhor coffee.
-
@pie_flavor said in In other news today...:
Just do what we do, and use gas!
I'm quite sure excessive farting adds to the toxic air side of things
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Quick survey: who here drinks black coffee?
I abhor coffee.
Your autocorrect made you mistype "adore".
-
@Zecc said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
I abhor coffee.
Your autocorrect made you mistype "adore".
Must be because of that weird keyboard.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@anonymous234 said in In other news today...:
[...]Spread one teaspoon (33g) onto 80g of bread (roughly 1/3 of a loaf)
So, uh... that little goop goes on how much bread†? And it's expected to be a full meal?
It'll be an artisanal loaf - they're about 10% of the size of a normal loaf.
At 5-times the price of a normal loaf.
-
@pie_flavor said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
Just do what we do, and use gas!
Did that sort the obesity crisis in your country?
-
Delphine ... I am your father!
-
@Jaloopa said in In other news today...:
@pie_flavor said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
Just do what we do, and use gas!
Did that sort the obesity crisis in your country?
What, the wild availability of sit-on-your-ass transportation? Not really.
-
@pie_flavor said in In other news today...:
sit-on-your-ass transportation?
yeah, standing bikes are uncomfortable.
-
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
And not, y'know, because of an overly-large diet of high-calorie junk food, lack of exercise, and general lack of parental oversight and discipline in these matters?
Surprisingly, the scientists thought of that.
The scientists took a series of other factors into account, including gender, ethnicity and parental education, and think it is unlikely that variations in diet could explain the strong link found.
They're even trying to figure out the mechanism:
“However, more research is needed to explain how toxins inhaled into the lungs affect fat cells throughout the body,” he said. In mice experiments, brain inflammation caused by air pollution has been shown to result in anxiety-induced overeating.
Isn't it weird how those scientists were able to anticipate your objections and take them into account? It's almost as if they were intelligent people, capable of independent thought!
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@anonymous234 said in In other news today...:
Another product joins the line of complete meals:
Spread one teaspoon (33g) onto 80g of bread (roughly 1/3 of a loaf)
So, uh... that little goop goes on how much bread†? And it's expected to be a full meal?
† In slices, not crazy European hipster units.
Holy shit, that stuff is horrifying as a meal substitute. They try to hide their ingredients but, as expected, it's basically just sugar and fat. 40% of the energy is from sugar
I eat a fair bit of Huel and, apart from the stupid name, it's quite carefully engineered to be an actual meal substitute that you can genuinely live on without wrecking your body, it's 1% sugar by energy and a heck of a lot cheaper. Doesn't taste like Nutella though...
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
And not, y'know, because of an overly-large diet of high-calorie junk food, lack of exercise, and general lack of parental oversight and discipline in these matters?
Surprisingly, the scientists thought of that.
The scientists took a series of other factors into account, including gender, ethnicity and parental education, and think it is unlikely that variations in diet could explain the strong link found.
They're saying that they think differences in eating food are unlikely to explain some people becoming fat?
They're even trying to figure out the mechanism:
“However, more research is needed to explain how toxins inhaled into the lungs affect fat cells throughout the body,” he said. In mice experiments, brain inflammation caused by air pollution has been shown to result in anxiety-induced overeating.
"Anxiety-induced overeating"? I thought they just said that eating was unrelated.
Isn't it weird how those scientists were able to anticipate your objections and take them into account? It's almost as if they were intelligent people, capable of independent thought!
Maybe they are. The reporting of their research doesn't make them out to be, though, if something as simple as eating variations aren't expected to have much of an effect.
-
Dutch police decrypts criminal communication via IronChat. Dozens of people arrested, seized weapons, money, soft drugs, hard drugs, and XTC.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
And not, y'know, because of an overly-large diet of high-calorie junk food, lack of exercise, and general lack of parental oversight and discipline in these matters?
Statistics prove it!
There's always a lot to be skeptical about things like this, since there's no good way to get good measurements on a lot of stuff like this. TFA didn't report anything useful like relative risks so it's really impossible to evaluate the claim from that alone but I think there's a lot of reason to remain skeptical.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
And not, y'know, because of an overly-large diet of high-calorie junk food, lack of exercise, and general lack of parental oversight and discipline in these matters?
Surprisingly, the scientists thought of that.
The scientists took a series of other factors into account, including gender, ethnicity and parental education, and think it is unlikely that variations in diet could explain the strong link found.
They're saying that they think differences in eating food are unlikely to explain some people becoming fat?
No, they're saying that the differences in diet don't suffice to explain the correlation they found. I.e. they found a strong correlation between obesity and proximity to pollution but did not find such a correlation between type of diet and proximity to pollution. Which would be needed for your claim to hold true.
They're even trying to figure out the mechanism:
“However, more research is needed to explain how toxins inhaled into the lungs affect fat cells throughout the body,” he said. In mice experiments, brain inflammation caused by air pollution has been shown to result in anxiety-induced overeating.
"Anxiety-induced overeating"? I thought they just said that eating was unrelated.
Seriously? They do NOT say that we behave like the mice. They said: "We found an issue where exposure to pollution made mice go fat (via induction of overeating). This shows that there can be mechanisms where pollution has an influence on body weight. We need to do more research to find a possible mechanism in humans, though."
This is a phenomenological study - i.e. they found an interesting correlation and now they want to know what makes it tick. They specifically did NOT say what you just implied they said.
Isn't it weird how those scientists were able to anticipate your objections and take them into account? It's almost as if they were intelligent people, capable of independent thought!
Maybe they are. The reporting of their research doesn't make them out to be, though, if something as simple as eating variations aren't expected to have much of an effect.
I explained that above. This is exactly why people fail in statistics all the time.
-
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
And not, y'know, because of an overly-large diet of high-calorie junk food, lack of exercise, and general lack of parental oversight and discipline in these matters?
Statistics prove it!
There's always a lot to be skeptical about things like this, since there's no good way to get good measurements on a lot of stuff like this. TFA didn't report anything useful like relative risks so it's really impossible to evaluate the claim from that alone but I think there's a lot of reason to remain skeptical.
Yes, because "Pollution is a risk factor for <xyz>" is such an incredible claim!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
(before reading)
No need to learn reading, just watch the video
Edit: he makes Edge start Firefox and send it to the Chrome download page
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
And not, y'know, because of an overly-large diet of high-calorie junk food, lack of exercise, and general lack of parental oversight and discipline in these matters?
Statistics prove it!
There's always a lot to be skeptical about things like this, since there's no good way to get good measurements on a lot of stuff like this. TFA didn't report anything useful like relative risks so it's really impossible to evaluate the claim from that alone but I think there's a lot of reason to remain skeptical.
Yes, because "Pollution is a risk factor for <xyz>" is such an incredible claim!
As usual, you fail to ask the important questions:
- How much risk?
- How was the exposure measured?
- How were the confounding factors measured?
And since there isn't an actual explanation for the causality, yes, it is somewhat incredible at this point. But thanks for acting like you know what you're talking about again.
-
@boomzilla Well, considering that the article did indeed link to all the studies they referenced, why don't you go there and find out for yourself?
Note the plural, by the way. This is not the first study to find such a correlation.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla Well, considering that the article did indeed link to all the studies they referenced, why don't you go there and find out for yourself?
Do you really have to ask?
-
@boomzilla Well, why should we give a flying fuck about your opinion then? Seriously, one of you complains about this article without having a clue about how statistics work and you are scoffing at something you haven't even read.
Wonderful debate culture.
-
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Well, why should we give a flying fuck about your opinion then?
You should if you want to be able to properly evaluate the statistical claims made by studies like this. In this case, to understand that in TFA there were details missing that would be required to make a determination about this study.
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Seriously, one of you complains about this article without having a clue about how statistics work and you are scoffing at something you haven't even read.
Like you are scoffing at my posts? No, I wasn't scoffing, I was just doing a critical evaluation of what was provided in TFA. Well, plus some snark. But maybe you honestly believe the studies that come out each month that alternate between telling us how coffee / eggs / red wine is good / bad for us, too.
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Wonderful debate culture.
Yeah, you probably should learn to apply critical thinking to the stuff you read before attempting to debate. A knowledge of how statistical epidemiology operates in particular would also be helpful in this instance.
-
@Rhywden You are an angry person today.
-
@boomzilla What "critical" analysis? Great, you read the article. And from the article you criticized the study which you admittedly didn't even read. Bravo.
And then you draw broad and great conclusions about what the study says when the study itself doesn't make any claims like what you say it claims.
In essence: You don't know what you're talking about and you're proud of your willful ignorance, thinking that because you've seen one study you've seen them all.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
What "critical" analysis?
Read the posts.
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
And then you draw broad and great conclusions about what the study says when the study itself doesn't make any claims like what you say it claims.
In essence: You don't know what you're talking about and you're proud of your willful ignorance, thinking that because you've seen one study you've seen them all.
None of this happened. You're just upset now because you're embarrassed about getting caught parroting the claims made in TFA and didn't bother to think about what might (or might not) be behind it all and you decided to rub it in the faces of a couple of nekulturny Americans.
-
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
And not, y'know, because of an overly-large diet of high-calorie junk food, lack of exercise, and general lack of parental oversight and discipline in these matters?
Surprisingly, the scientists thought of that.
The scientists took a series of other factors into account, including gender, ethnicity and parental education, and think it is unlikely that variations in diet could explain the strong link found.
They're saying that they think differences in eating food are unlikely to explain some people becoming fat?
No, they're saying that the differences in diet don't suffice to explain the correlation they found. I.e. they found a strong correlation between obesity and proximity to pollution but did not find such a correlation between type of diet and proximity to pollution. Which would be needed for your claim to hold true.
What in the world? How did you possibly get that that correlation is even related to my claim? (Edit: my claim is that diet has a much stronger effect on weight than exposure to air pollution from living near a busy road.)
They're even trying to figure out the mechanism:
“However, more research is needed to explain how toxins inhaled into the lungs affect fat cells throughout the body,” he said. In mice experiments, brain inflammation caused by air pollution has been shown to result in anxiety-induced overeating.
"Anxiety-induced overeating"? I thought they just said that eating was unrelated.
Seriously? They do NOT say that we behave like the mice. They said: "We found an issue where exposure to pollution made mice go fat (via induction of overeating). This shows that there can be mechanisms where pollution has an influence on body weight. We need to do more research to find a possible mechanism in humans, though."
If humans don't behave like the mice did in their experiment, then why would they even be looking for something similar in humans?
This is a phenomenological study - i.e. they found an interesting correlation and now they want to know what makes it tick. They specifically did NOT say what you just implied they said.
Maybe it's the reporting. ... Oh, hang on! I just finished reading the article, and the phenomenon they found was a difference of 1 kg (~2 lbs. 3 oz.) in 2,318 10-year-olds in southern California!? With a difference that small in a population that specific, I bet I could find a "strong correlation" with any number of things.
Isn't it weird how those scientists were able to anticipate your objections and take them into account? It's almost as if they were intelligent people, capable of independent thought!
Maybe they are. The reporting of their research doesn't make them out to be, though, if something as simple as eating variations aren't expected to have much of an effect.
I explained that above. This is exactly why people fail in statistics all the time.
It's sounding more and more like confirmation bias based on shoddy research for sure.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
If humans don't behave like the mice did in their experiment, then why would they even be looking for something similar in humans?
Research budgets don't justify themselves, you know...
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Your kids are fat because you drive Diesel trucks
And not, y'know, because of an overly-large diet of high-calorie junk food, lack of exercise, and general lack of parental oversight and discipline in these matters?
Surprisingly, the scientists thought of that.
The scientists took a series of other factors into account, including gender, ethnicity and parental education, and think it is unlikely that variations in diet could explain the strong link found.
They're saying that they think differences in eating food are unlikely to explain some people becoming fat?
No, they're saying that the differences in diet don't suffice to explain the correlation they found. I.e. they found a strong correlation between obesity and proximity to pollution but did not find such a correlation between type of diet and proximity to pollution. Which would be needed for your claim to hold true.
What in the world? How did you possibly get that that correlation is even related to my claim? (Edit: my claim is that diet has a much stronger effect on weight than exposure to air pollution from living near a busy road.)
AND FUCKING EXACTLY NO ONE is disputing that!
BUT, and this may surprise you, the study suggests that pollution makes it harder to keep a healthy weight. This is IN ADDITION to whatever unhealthy diet you're doing.
Seriously, you're making yourself look like an idiot. "Oh, factor A has such a strong effect on B, there can't be anything else which influences B!"
This is not an exclusive effect. It's cumulative.
You do realize that diet alone is not a 100% reliable predictor for body weight? You realize that the way that your metabolism works is also a big influence - some people gain weight much more easily than others. And that if you screw with said metabolism you may also change the weight gains/losses?
So why is it exactly that exposing fetuses and babies to pollution (which, as the definition for pollution suggests, does not consist of wholesome and healthy substances) is incapable of doing just that - screwing with the metabolism? Don't forget that even tiny doses of chemicals can have huge knock-on effects in fetuses. There's a reason why, for example, alcohol is banned during pregnancy.
With a science education like this, no wonder you're in such a sorry state. Willful ignorance and rampant stupidity seems to be the motto of the century for you. Seriously, if guys like you were around 40 years ago we'd probably still be using leaded gasoline.
Then again, given your attitudes here, maybe you're actually still sniffing the stuff. Would explain quite a number of things about conservatives.
-
@Rhywden lol calm down