atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#5595: Your advice is both unwelcome and tiresome.

AoSHQ has a thread up about a HuffPo article, "Looking For Concensus on 'Healthy' Foods".
Hell; we can start with the title. I do not want consensus in my science. I want it to be correct. Consensus in the 1980s was to eat trans fats and a high-carb diet. I wonder how that worked out?
"Knowledge and reason change like the season," but nowhere is that more true than in nutrition science. (Or "science".)

Concensus is a crappy way to do science. Physics is full of examples, and I won't retread them here, except to say "luminiferous ether". It doesn't matter what everyone agrees on if it's contrary to the facts. If 9 out of 10 scientists declared tomorrow that gravity is not real, we'd still be held fast to the Earth's surface by it, and the planets would continue in their courses.

It's what's wrong with global warming. Today's Dilbert is apt.

There has been a hell of a lot of garbage pumped out of the nutrition research industry about what food is "healthy" and what is not, and just in the time since I reached the age of majority it has changed, changed, and changed again. I've concluded that I am best served by eating things in moderation and skipping nothing. I eat full-fat cheese and milk products; I use butter and bacon when cooking. I drain the fat from hamburger (like when cooking chili or tacos) only because leaving it in gives me a bad stomach. I have salads, but I use regular dressing, never low-fat. In fact I eschew all "low-fat" foods because they add all kinds of crap to them to make them taste right, and usually that means "high fructose corn syrup". Because I don't eat low fat, I eat less food than I would if I didn't, because my hunger reflex is sated faster.

I ignore all studies on what the carcinogen of the week is. (In my lifetime, coffee has alternated between causing and not causing cancer at least four times. Currently it's "not" but who knows what will come up next week?)

Fats, trans-fats, saturated fats, unsaturated fats--I ignore all that. The human body has mechanisms for controlling blood cholesterol; the cholesterol number is not a direct function of intake and it correlates poorly with the risk for heart disease. Next year they may be saying that heart disease causes a high cholesterol count. Often the treatment (statins) are worse for you than the disease. (One of Dad's cardiologists in 1989: "Cholesterol is just a number.")

When nutrition stops being "fad of the week" and is based on real and repeatable science, I may start listening then. But so far, they're not there.

* * *

I'm just gonna blockquote it.
What's revolting is the sheer selfishness of one or both of the spouses involved. Their obsession with a completely fulfilling and intoxicating sex life borders on the pathological. They seem to regard a boring marriage bed as a human-rights violation, as if they were absolutely entitled to thrilling sex. Here's one wife describing her insistence on maintaining an extramarital relationship: "I really just felt like it was right, like it was important to my growth. It was like I was choosing to take a stand for my own pleasure and sticking to it. It was so strong, that feeling."
You know, and to hell with those vows I said on my wedding day. That promise I made isn't nearly as important as my feelings.

There are reasons why traditionally, adultery is frowned upon, why it's forbidden by most religions. It's bad for people. It's not because religions were made up by meany-mean-heads who don't want anyone to have a good time; it's because when you cheat on your spouse, you're damaging your relationship and ultimately you're damaging yourself.

The whole article is well worth reading.

* * *

If you're not ultra-rich, the ultra-rich will look at you on the monitors and laugh at how poor you are. Well, ain't that just spiffy.

* * *

I forgot that ex-FBI director Comey was the one who wanted to force US IT companies to put backdoors into their products. Karl Denninger knocks one out of the park re: WinCry and the whole tangled mess of NSA malware.

* * *

I think the criticism is well deserved. "The cost that the government cost-plus programs charge for their rockets is just ridiculous," said a SpaceX executive. It is ridiculous, though. SpaceX is making access to space a hell of a lot cheaper than the big names are, and they're doing it because they can.

No one else was trying to do it before they did; everyone was perfectly comfortable with launches costing two thousand dollars a pound or more, because the government never blinked an eye at it and that way everyone made money. But think about it: this is exactly what happens in any industry. Before Ford started mass-producing cars, they were expensive machines, often with bespoke carriagework. And those manufacturers couldn't stay in business when the economy went sour.

But there is no economic or physical reason launches have to cost that much. It's just laziness; our system is good enough and we make a guaranteed profit on each launch, regardless of what that launch ends up costing. The government makes sure to spread around the fat so everyone stays in business, which stifles competition. Everyone gets a piece of the pie and no one has to suffer.

...and there's absolutely no reason to innovate or find a way to reduce the cost-to-orbit, either.

As I said, I think the criticism is apt.

* * *

Well, it's a pleasant May Sunday and Mrs. Fungus is off work. We're going to grill some sausages and enjoy food and laugh.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.