You write in absolutes when talking about your own opinion as if it's generally accepted to be a fact, which makes even interesting looking bits look suspicious when you encounter something clearly biased.
I generally agree with what you are saying, however I'm quite surprised at the pushback about homegrown eggs tasting better than mass-produced.
Send me as many papers as you want, but respectfully, I have empirically tasted the difference. I have no interest on imposing my opinion on anyone, but to me it's pretty obvious and easy to understand and accept that a better fed, better cared for chicken will produce better eggs.
> I generally agree with what you are saying, however I'm quite surprised at the pushback about homegrown eggs tasting better than mass-produced.
There have been many studies on this and in true blind tests people do not prefer one over the other. The Kenji tests are interesting as he even dyes the eggs green to prevent the color from giving it away.
> Send me as many papers as you want, but respectfully, I have empirically tasted the difference.
You think it tastes better because you know the provenance of the egg. It's like a placebo effect. Try your own blind study and see if you can actually tell the difference.
> I have no interest on imposing my opinion on anyone, but to me it's pretty obvious and easy to understand and accept that a better fed, better cared for chicken will produce better eggs.
There's plenty of non-taste reasons that they're better. You might care about the welfare of the animal. And the vitamins or balance of fatty acids might be different. But they all taste the same.
> A bit like with Wagyu steak, no?
A Wagyu would be significantly more marbled than your off the shelf USDA Choice steak. So of course it would taste different. The balance of protein v.s. fats and distribution throughout the meat would be completely different.
I'm not the person you are replying to, but I have empirically not tasted the difference. The only difference between store bought eggs and farm fresh ones is that the yolk is vividly yellow on the ones from the farm. I am willing to bet that the people who taste a difference are imagining it because of the superior aesthetics, and that they wouldn't taste anything different in a double blind taste test. Which is fine, nothing wrong with the placebo effect. But I don't think there's any substance to the claim that the eggs actually taste better.
I think you're approaching it form very high level, when you should think about it from much lower level, i.e. success is being determined by stress/dopamine hormones or similar
This article is kind of vague on that tbf:
To conclude, we observed no credible evidence for a beneficial effect of L-dopa (vs. Haloperidol) on reinforcement learning in a reward context, as well as the proposed mechanistic account of an enhanced striatal prediction error response mediating this effect.
Is that controversial? I would say everything a human does is to feel better, and everything someone does that doesn’t make them feel better immediately is just done in the expectation of even greater pleasure later.
Well mine can, with some tactics and strategy layered on top. If I do something I don’t like, I only do it because the payoff later makes it worth it (or at least I think it will from my current knowledge).
It is important that “profit”, comes in various forms, which exchange rates are problematic to calculate (or maybe there can’t be any): not hungry, not thirsty, tastes good, not cold, feel safe, feel excited, feel righteous, feel powerful, listen to music, watch a movie, get curious, satisfy curiosity, laugh, love, sex, rock n roll.
That's strawman that has nothing to do with this topic. If you follow this line of thought, everything that is discussed in classified briefings is being done in bad faith, which I agree is easy to argue for, because we tend to pick and remember only bad examples, lack of trust in the system probably doesn't help much either. So even if you're right about trusting Gov in general, your argument is still wrong.
Most software work in pharma and manufacturing is still CRUD, they just have cultures of rigorous documentation that permeates the industry even when it's low value. Documenting every little change made sense when I was programming the robotics for a genetic diagnostics pipeline, not so much when I had to write a one pager justifying a one line fix to the parser for the configuration format or updating some LIMS dependency to fix a vulnerability in an internal tool that's not even open to the internet.
Well, a hand watch or a chair cannot kill people, but the manufacturing documentation for them will be very precise.
Software development is not engineering because it is still relatively young and immature field. There is a joke where a mathematician, a physicist and a engineer are given a little red rubber ball and asked to find its volume. The mathematician measures the diameter and computes, the physicist immerses the ball into water and sees how much was displaced, and an the engineer looks it up in his "Little red rubber balls" reference.
Software development does not yet have anything that may even potentially grow into such a reference. If we decide to write it we would not even know where to start. We have mathematicians who write computer science papers; or physicists who test programs; standup comedians, philosophers, everyone. But not engineers.
Difference is that code is the documentation and design.
That is problem where people don’t understand that point.
Runtime and running application is the chair. Code is design how to make “chair” run on computer.
I say in software development we are years ahead when it comes to handling complexity of documentation with GIT and CI/CD practices, code reviews and QA coverage with unit testing of the designs and general testing.
So I do not agree that software development is immature field. There are immature projects and companies cut corners much more than on physical products because it is much easier to fix software later.
reply