Just read it and they were not disputing the existence of two strains but rather that the virus didnt jump from animals twice. The article disputes the claim that because L strain is 70% of the cases, that it must be more virulent.
the distinction is important here because this subthread started from the suggestion that there are multiple strains circulating, with different virulence. The fact there are multiple lineages is a natural consequence of how viruses spread
Well nutrition isn't exactly a settled science. There are many problems with studies and as a result we have a wide variety of sometimes contradictory conclusions from them. New conclusions and findings come out but the nutrition community is unable to achieve a consensus understanding on these types of aspects of a diet. There are too many confounding factors involved in studies and it is nearly impossible to design a study that will show the exact effects of eating bacon on the diet without other dietary considerations tainting the results. Like for instance lots of new studies are coming out recently claiming that our disdain for saturated fats is highly misguided. However, nutritionists cannot come to a consensus because old school people stick to what they learn in school without keeping up with studies, people distrust the new studies or argue in favor of the many contradictory studies, etc...
The science is settled, but like everything else, untrained people can't tell the difference between a good study and a bad study, and the media reports on them all.
Check out the book _How Not to Diet_, which is the most recent masterwork on evidence-based nutrition.
It doesn't take a ___domain expert to know this claim is fundamentally wrong. Science is never settled. There are conclusions that stand the test of time and accumulated evidence, but nutrition is a field with precious few of those.
I would not agree with those government diets, without some nuance sprinkled in. Calling all the government bodies published guidelines "scientific consensus" isnt the same thing as scientific consensus.
Vegetables - way too broad a category. Should be split into leaves, stalks, roots, starches, seeds, alliums, brassicaceae, legumes etc. Calling it all "vegetables" makes it hard for people to rank, prioritize, and proportion which are a better use of time, money, and energy to consume. There might be consensus on eating "vegetables" but not necessarily every group of them.
Nutritional density is more complicated than "vegetables."
Whole grains - Antithesis to previous point, grains are not categorized as vegetables. Why are whole grains their own recommended category everywhere as a staple part of diets? Is it cost? Industry lobbying? Diet recommendation should focus on leaves and seeds, with cereals as a filler. Cereal portion should be the one controlled to control weight gain, moreso than plant fat from seeds/nuts. We've gotten too comfortable with a huge serving of rice or potatoes with something thrown on top.
Fruit - mostly as not necessary to a healthy diet as this makes it look like. Can be avoided the same way meat is.
Fish (salmon & sardines) and Seafood (mussels) belongs in the consensus part over fruit.
Doesn't touch on fermented food.
The jury is more out on saturated fat and dietary cholesterol than these government bodies want to admit.
Its hard to reverse course quickly and say "everything we said for the last 30 years is wrong."
Almost none of the diet suggestions focus on digestion, absorption.
I just dont see consensus on what percent of a diet should be grain vs vegetable, starches, legumes, fats, meats. Maybe it doesnt matter. "WFPB is the healthiest diet" is very different from "WFPB is one of the healthiest diets."
They (Bumble, but all same company) threatened to ban me because I called them dirty thieves, after I pointed out some dark patterns that they introduced as new features, and they told me they had no plans to revert them. It sucks when there's no stiff competition.
So far, The Beehive (Bumble's company) has managed to avoid being swallowed into the black hole that is Match Group (Match.com, Tinder, OK Cupid, PoF, more...). Though yes, the point stands that competition is rare and thus far every competitor eventually gets swallowed into the black hole. (The assumption for Bumble is not if but when.)
What are some of these dark patterns? I have a subscription to them but am thinking about canceling. They often tell me somebody's matched with me, but when I go to open the app, there are no matches in my queue. I always wonder if it's just a bug or a dark pattern to get you to open the app.
They used to show me how many coins I had purchased at all times, and they used to have a round yellow button on my profile that I'd press to buy more coins when my balance was low. First, they removed the coin balance, and I can only see how many coins I have left for a split second when I spend a coin. Then, They replaced the button to buy coins with a button that looks almost the same (exactly the same at a glance) with the Spotlight button, which costs 2 coins. So, when I noticed that I was running low on coins (on one of the rare times I could actually catch the flash balance), I pressed the button to buy more, and had 2 coins deducted form my account instantly. Of course, considering muscle memory, that happened a couple of times. So, after a few messages explaining the situation and not getting any recourse whatsoever, I called them out and they didn't like it.
Pretty sure this is just crappy microservice engineering where the microservices disagree with each other. I always see the match counter being wrong, matches I declined linger anywhere between an hour and a day...
It's hard to have a reliable rating system for non fungible goods. Unless a person dated a hundred other people, it'd be hard to tell if the rating is accurate. I think it'd work if you want to find people to have sex with one night. I doubt its usefulness to find a partner
I think a rating system would be highly exploitable. Other than that, people seem to think in extremes. Either it's close to 10, or close to 0. Middle-tier doesn't move anyone, even though most are there...for example, how many times do you watch movies with 5.0 rating on IMDb
Additionally, I don’t think such a rating system would work absent some sort of collaborative filtering system. One person’s ten is another person’s zero. That said, if you had a date with a ten, would you want to share that information?
If you assume honest usage, a high number of ratings becomes a negative signal. That is, it signals someone who doesn't want to stop using the app or is excessively selective.
So a good signal is probably someone with few ratings. Which would seem to defeat the point of a rating system, as a five-out-of-five rating is now a bad sign.
Anecdotally, this does comport with my experience back when OKCupid would tell you how old someone's account was. It was far easier to make contact and have a conversation with a new account than with one months to years old.
> If you assume honest usage, a high number of ratings becomes a negative signal. That is, it signals someone who doesn't want to stop using the app or is excessively selective.
If someone is looking for a long-term relationship, two selective people who both find who they're selecting for in each other seems like a good thing.
(That said, ratings in this area would have a huge number of problems. Not least of which that outcomes would strongly influence ratings, and if both people are happy then they stop needing the service, so any rating will come from a match in which one or the other person wasn't happy.)
An app that matches people, gets feedback on dates, and then if they couple up, gets regular feedback on how they are in relationship / during a break up. Then that score comes with them back into the dating app.
Truth is, an app isn’t going to solve for people’s insecure attachment styles and malAdaptive coping strategies.
Perhaps an app that matches based on symmetrical childhood traumas would be a hit.
> An app that matches people, gets feedback on dates, and then if they couple up, gets regular feedback on how they are in relationship / during a break up. Then that score comes with them back into the dating app.
What incentive does anyone have to keep using the service to provide such "feedback" if they find their match, leaving aside the creepiness factor of a service asking for such information? (And please, don't create such an incentive.) If they find their way back into the service, then (ignoring relatively rare cases) something didn't work out.
Communication within a relationship is a big deal.
So, a service that helped people gain awareness of their patterns and provided a mechanism for mutual feedback would be useful to someone who is interested in improving the skills of love and relationship.
There already exist apps that people use for feedback and communication in romantic relationship.
And, most relationships end (they all do eventually to mortality). How they end is very telling of the success of the next one.
The problem isn’t really the matching algorithms, it's that people lack the understanding and modeling of how to have healthy adult relationships, they carry a lot of unprocessed trauma, and they don't have a context or tools to work through those old patterns.
It's like making an HR app to match a lot of aspiring kindergartners to AI jobs or the space program.
No. If someone was great, but not for me, do I rate them 0 stars? 5 stars? Am I feeding the algorithm or helping others? If I met someone, instantly fell in love, but they decided it wasn't a good match and didn't want to go on a second (or 5th, or 10th) date... then I can revenge-rate them to sink their future chances of being happy?
Rating systems don't really provide much value elsewhere for various reasons, so I wouldn't expect it to work well for dates, either. Especially not for dates, now that I think of it.
You mean like Amazon's rating system that's gamed and manipulated? :)
Edit: Now that I think about this more, I am not sure how a rating would work. "He's a 5 star! Would totally date him again!" Wait, what? Why would you stop?
Many of these products already carry ads or would be a convenient place to put ads, even if they'd have to be bought for each product individually. Also the Pixel stuff is very pricy for hardware that isn't top of the line.
Before I had a good job I was playing one game, but lately I have enjoyed playing new games on my switch and emulating games I never played on my android. People like new games. I have shifted away from the service based games.
I have the same history, but different reasoning -- now that price isn't that much of an issue, I lose interest much faster. Most games require much more time than they have content. Games feel more vapid. Or maybe I've gotten better at recognizing it. But I just play until I get the gist of it, and move on; sometimes the trailer alone is sufficient to have extracted 90÷ of the interesting material.
