Anything is an alternative to anything else if you think about it. Want a Chinese smartphone? Have you considered eating a delicious European made chocolate bar instead?
At least that's the vibe I'm getting from this site.
If you're rich enough to consider an extra 20% on a meal "marginal" then good for you. I am too, at this point in my life.
But we need to recognize that as a privilege. For most people (including me, ten years ago) that's absolutely not marginal. Most people are having to budget and count their money carefully even at amounts you are privileged do dismiss as having no relevance.
Having the privilege of wealth is fine, up to a point. Being so wrapped up in it that you don't recognize it as a privilege is not fine.
That's 1.8g/kg of lean body mass which is pretty close to the 2g/kg total body mass I've always used for weight training.
That's still a LOT of protein. 130g a day for me. To reach that is 500g of chicken breast, for example. And it's not like you can eat that in one meal. That's another controversial topic but it's likely about 50g per meal (for me, 90kg man) is the max. So if I eat chicken for dinner, 50g protein the I still need two other spaced meals to get the remaining 80g.
I'm not doing elite training so I'm not going to follow this rigidly, it's just a rough daily goal. I'll usually have a protein shake per day, then a high protein meal and try to make up the rest elsewhere.
Well good for you, but for me 500g of chicken breast would be unpleasant to eat. FYI if you're eating it in one meal you're almost certainly burning 2/3s of it as calories.
> The non-UPF and UPF test meals were closely matched on meal weight, energy, energy density, macronutrients, available carbohydrate, glycaemic index and load, total dietary fibre, sodium and water (all ≤1.6% deviation between meals; Fig. 1b).
So they did match glycemic index, which the article omits.
I was about to comment that the physical structure of the food and the fiber content also make a difference. For instance, rolled oats are available in different thicknesses, and the thicker ones don’t digest as easily. Brown vs white rice is another example.
But these examples have different glycemic indexes, which the study matched for.
Not only psychology, but training. If your body gets a load of sugar every time it tastes UPF additives, it learns to release insulin on taste to protect itself.
Another option is that it's affected by the order of consumption.
I know somebody who got really into blood glucose monitoring, and she tells me that the order in which she eats a meal affects how much it spikes her glucose. So if she eats a piece of toast followed by a piece of cheese, it causes her a bigger glucose spike than she'd get if she eats the cheese first and then the toast.
Looking at the two meals in the study: if I sat down to eat the processed one, I'd probably start with the veggie straws. If I saw down to eat the unprocessed one, I'd almost certainly start with the egg or the cheese.
edit: and here are some other options: I notice that the unprocessed one is grain-free, vegetarian and has significantly less sucrose. I don't know if any of that makes it more or less healthy, but they're significant differences nutritionally.
If you look up how to calculate the glycemic index of a meal, the formula treats each meal component's glycemic index as a proportion of the total meal's glycemic index.
But the above example shows that the body doesn't treat food in that manner - the relatively low carb, higher fat cheese didn't smooth out the higher proportion carb count of the toast.
In the paper, the largest carbs for the ultraprocessed meal was instant mashed potatoes, while the non-processed meal had bananas as the largest carb source followed by craisins/cranberries.
The high carb foods in the unprocessed meal are paired with fiber.
The high carb foods in the ultraprocessed meal are NOT paired with fiber.
The fiber slows the rate of carb intake.
Same thing occurs with protein - same amount of ground beef and steak, ground beef meal will result in faster amino acid ingestion than the steak meal. No idea if there are any pros/cons of the faster ground beef ingestion, but there is a difference in how the digestive system processes the two meals.
> I know somebody who got really into blood glucose monitoring, and she tells me that the order in which she eats a meal affects how much it spikes her glucose. So if she eats a piece of toast followed by a piece of cheese, it causes her a bigger glucose spike than she'd get if she eats the cheese first and then the toast.
This is what I read in a book about glucose. So I went ahead and measured. I found it not true, at least in my case. The recommendations of eating salad before your meal do nothing measureable for my glucose spikes.
> A CEO managing an army of agents is possibly on the hook if anything goes wrong - for example, if one of the agents does tax fraud or hacks a competitor
This is correct under present day thinking.
But imagine the accounting AI of twenty years hence. If it can reliably do the books, reduce and prevent fraud, significantly better than any human ever could, why would you still need the human in that loop?
In the present day it's a legal requirement, not to mention a practical requirement given present AI capabilities. That doesn't mean it still will be in the future.
To put it another way, if the human is on the hook for the agent, but the agent is proven by a decade+ of statistical evidence to be way less mistake/fraud prone than the human, what's the point of the human there?
I'll give you that the capabilities of LLMs are improving rapidly. Their safety, however, seems to be stuck in mid-2023. They're still easy to dupe and prone to cheating to solve problems. Prompt injection is still a thing, and it's still something we need to paper over with input and output classifiers and other hacks external to the LLM.
What we're seeing so far is consistent with the training data being the upper bound for capabilities. They get better at recall / synthesis / reasoning over the corpus, but they don't, for example, acquire trans-human ethics; they're at best as ethical as we are, except not grounded by the fear of consequences. A perfectly-behaved, perfectly-moral LLM is not a given in 20 years, not unless your position is that there's room for unbounded, exponential self-improvement without any loss of fidelity. In that case, we'll probably have problems more pressing than the outlook for accounting jobs.
I'm hearing "better" and "less" but not zero and none. The more interesting question is what happens when that rouge/hallucinating agent does commit that statistically unlikely fraud. Who is responsible then? Or is it now no low we just consider it an "accident", pay a small penalty, and move on?
> as cnc grew, machinists shrunk in headcount and wage.
Headcount, yes, wages, no.
However, you're assuming that cnc operators can't be artisans. Why?
If we allow anyone with a craft to be considered an artisans if they have a high enough skill level - and we should - I'd counter that the overall number of artisans has likely increased even if less of them now have the title of machinist.
Well, no. I think a couple of very basic ps5 2d games are playable so far.
reply