Excellent, more ultra processed material that our bodies have never encountered before and don’t know what to do with, what could go wrong with eating it in with other things that we aren’t supposed to be eating?

There’s no such thing as bad cholesterol. It’s just cholesterol. Why would eggs be bad for you?

Calories are a unit of heat, and absorbing nutrition is a biological process. Unless you’re a bomb calorimeter, they have very little to do with what goes on inside you after you eat. I urge you to reconsider what food you choose to eat.

You should absolutely desist from saying that other people should not avoid UPFs, because that is a harmful statement in the same vein as “you don’t have to stop smoking.”

Here’s one pathway, and I’m sure there are more:

Ultra-processed food are high in carbohydrates, refined sugars, and industrially processed oils. When consumed, they are quickly and easily absorbed by the body causing a rapid increase in blood glucose, easily proven by a CGM. The body responds by producing insulin. High insulin levels contribute to fat cells stocking lipids and also the replication of fat cells.

which are harmless part of human food that has existed for thousands of years

There are almost no whole foods that exist which contain all three major macronutrients, but this is not uncommon in UPFs. Personally, I would just avoid UPFs entirely.

Little known fact: the hippo fairy is the only type of fairy that is bulletproof.

Streaming assets is precisely the reason for fast i/o. There’s a reason technologies like DirectStorage and its PS5 equivalent exist.

Fast Food!

It’s very wrong, if only for the simple reason that not all calories are the same. Eating 1000 calories worth of protein will not have the effect as eating 1000 calories of HFCS.

Please stop parroting this piece of reductionist misinformation that is used to sell us ultra-processed foods.

It’s very difficult to over-eat saturated fat because absorption requires bile, and there is a limited amount in the gall bladder. My understanding is that eating more than you can absorb results in it going right through you.

If I eat a mcdouble and a diet coke, I’m eating much healthier than if I ate a whole rotissery chicken with potato wedges and a glass of apple juice. Calories and reducing sugar intake are the most important things.

This is highly misleading on many levels, and I strongly urge you to re-evaluate your position on an appropriate diet. For example, nutrition is a biological process that has very little to do with a calorie, which is a measurement of heat energy.

It will ruin the experience for anyone playing competitively in a ranked mode, which means invalidating that mode entirely. This drives players away from competitive games like CS, Valorant, etc. which is why those games all use anti-cheats.

Similarly if there is a persistent world or some state that the game relies on to make the game fun for everyone, e.g. extraction shooter, MMORPG, etc then if the game state’s integrity is compromised it loses meaning entirely. Imagine playing chess but your opponent can move the pieces any way they like; it stops being a game.

I do agree that games where everyone agrees on cheating should allow it.

All client anti-cheat have server components, otherwise they will be bypassed.

I love how in every anticheat discussion someone who actually knows something about how games work get downvoted into oblivion.

You’ll find that based on 3.7 - 4.2 that most li-ion batteries are indeed charged from 0-100 and not 20-80 as you previously claimed. Manufacturers have no reason to overprovision consumer products that are made to be replaced in 5 years or so.

I think it would be illuminating for you to try making a game where the difficulty slowly increases, such as Tetris. Once you’ve done so, add a slider to it so that the difficult does not slowly increase.

You will find the experience completely different when you play. Difficulty in games isn’t just about accessibility.

I think it’s accurate to say that meat is a luxury in the sense that we collectively are paying environmental and ethical costs for the farming industry.

I’d like to see us factor in the bio-availability of nutrients from both plant and animal sources when considering the costs, as well.

:q this

Thank you for posting this counterpoint, I’m somewhat skeptical too. The article you linked does not explain some the observations in Dr Pollack’s laboratory, so I wonder if there’s not more to this whole thing.

I’m really curious about every aspect of this so I also want to read Change Your Diet, Change Your Mind by Dr Georgia Ede, and it’s also because I think this may be interesting to some of my friends. It’s nice to think that it must surely not just be coincidence that we are doing this reading not just for ourselves but for the people close to us too!

I have both Why We Get Sick and How Not to Get Sick on my backlog also, but I think I’ll read The Fourth Phase of Water for a change of pace!