I disagree I think nutrition guidence is extremely important and in the precense of horrible examples nations get really unhealthy. The only country 1st world country not to have really obese people is Japan (~5% obese ~20% overweight). (~35% obsese ~70% overweight US) and I'd wager a large part of that is the fact that kids cook for themselves in school so they learn early what a reasonable meal is. They also learn how to cook not that they do that forever but setting reasonable food expectations is extremely important.
Being obese as a kid is almost causal for being obese later in life[1] as becoming obese screws up a lot of your bodies biology permenantly. You can of course change and become healthier but many lingering symptoms linger regardless of you losing weight. While still 70% obese adults were not obese as children 80% of obese children end up being obese.
Open to other ideas but school meals and peoples relationship with food is extremely important to maintaining weight in my experience.
> The only country 1st world country not to have really obese people is Japan (~5% obese ~20% overweight). (~35% obsese ~70% overweight US) and I'd wager a large part of that is the fact that kids cook for themselves in school so they learn early what a reasonable meal is.
There might also be a genetic factor, why japanese are less obese or overweight, because the difference for diabetes patients between US and japan is a lot smaller.
There is no genetic factor because when Japanese people move to the States they are as obese as america's within 2 generation. I want to find the study but I think they end up being physically lighter because of other factors but are just as obese or overweight as americas[1]. The reasoning from the paper is that Japanese 2nd generation adopted western cultures eating habits
That's clearly true, given people by and large know what's good and bad for them but their consumption choices need to factor in a much larger set of pressing constraints like price, availability, and readiness and more abstract constraints like "am I able to be at home with my child and cook for them or do I need to work a second job to make ends meet?" I will not trust a single word from RFK's mouth until he has something to say about food deserts and prices and a plan to do something about it. Until then, he's done the easiest part which bureaucrats specialize in, which is publishing an updated set of guidelines.
It's a good observation, and one I don't think is widely enough appreciated among modern post-COVID, pro-censorship liberals.
Trust primarily by virtue of authority is a bad quality to inculcate in a populace.
Yes, any alternative epistemological basis means you have to deal with Aunt Glenda or Uncle Roy who didn't graduate high school being convinced they're smarter than 'those scientists'.
But we're sliding dangerously close to outsourcing common sense, and the solution isn't encouraging more prostration to expert authority.
It's developing more widespread reasoning from first principles (coupled with curiosity and self-awareness of ones own intellectual limitations).
That depends entirely on how much "slightly more expensive" is. For the vast majority of the travelling public, they'll choose the cheaper option and we know that because that's what they choose already.
Most major airports are at their physical limit in terms of both airfield and gate traffic and are charging extremely high gate fees. I'm not in airline logistics but I would bet my bottom dollar that is the true constraint in having more traffic fly into hubs.
The easy answer: Google simply does not care. Some mix of: they don't measure it, they don't look at it, they don't goal around reducing it, nobody's performance review is going to be better because they reduced it, no director is asking product teams why they're increasing the app size. It's not surprising why these companies don't care, because it's a tragedy of the commons. The better question is why is Apple allowing these companies to ship apps that unnecessarily take up a meaningful amount of storage space?
Nowhere in the article is the author suggesting that local or state governments manage these algorithms, just that they be audited for fairness given the amount of power these algorithms hold in the market. Google operates something of a monopoly in Google Maps and its recommendations. You don't find an attempt to understand the efficacy of its rankings or how Google or market participants could be manipulating the rankings to benefit themselves interesting?
> At minimum, ranking algorithms with this much economic consequence should be auditable.
"At minimum". Immediately preceded by a paragraph starting by "For policy", with sentences like "If discovery now shapes small-business survival, then competition, fairness, and urban regeneration can no longer ignore platform ranking systems" or "tools of local economic policy".
That's perhaps not an outright call for regulation, but it's certainly suggesting it's warranted.
Any analysis of Github's functionality that begins and ends with blaming individuals and their competency is deeply mistaken while being insulting. Anyone who has ever worked at a large company knows exactly how hard it is for top performers to make changes and it's not difficult because the other people are stupid. At least in my experience, almost everyone holding this "they must be stupid" opinion knows very little about how large organizations make decisions and knows very little about how incentives at different levels of an org chart leads to suboptimal decisions and results. I would agree with you that being overly polite helps no one, but being correct does, and what they initially wrote isn't even right and it's also insulting. There's no value in that.
That's besides the point, isn't it? There is a high likelihood that these models, these companies, and the people building them are going to be central in shaping future conversations and thought. Why does it matter what they're used for right now?
> It's not a skill issue, it's an organizational issue.
We can say that for the majority of companies with large teams that already have this. Everyone knows Meta is no different.
In this case, it's a skill issue to ship low quality software which is what whoever that team at Meta just did and knowingly approved.
> The engineers at Meta are world class but they're nerfed by organizational constraints.
That doesn't mean anything given that shipping regressions to billions of users is not of "world class" calibre.
If fact, that is of amateurs behaviour and way below the expectation of a multi-trillion dollar company hiring the "best" engineers which they can certainly afford.
It is a management failure 100%. It doesn’t matter how good you engineers are when they are punished for doing good work and rewarded for shipping garbage.
Part of being good means pushing back too and managing upwards. Seems like they hire only those that won’t. Thus the management failure causes culture causing mediocrity.
Cite evidence please.
reply