The bigger problem is nutritional density. I tried meeting the 1-1.5 g/kg protein level through a vegetarian whole grains diet and it's a lot of flipping food. Equivalent of like 3kg of chickpeas a day to make it.
It was definitely eye opening on the sort of ancient benefit of meat. It's really hard to reach your muscular potential without it.
An adult who weighs 75 kg, so is targeting about 75 grams of protein intake per day, would only need to eat 833 grams of cooked chickpeas (which are 9% protein by weight) to get there. That is indeed a lot of chickpeas! But a lot less than you claimed, and you probably shouldn't be getting all your protein from chickpeas anyway.
You're probably talking about dry weight. My can says 6g protein / 130 g. I'm about 100kg and to hit the 1.6 g protein/kg I need 160g of protein. 6g/130g * 3500 g is 161 g of protein.
- Canned, drained and rinsed: 7g protein / 100g [1]
- Boiled: 9g protein / 100g [2]
Not sure what explains the discrepancy (though the second number is much older), but both are considerably higher than what your can says. Sure you aren't reading a per-serving amount?
Maybe not literally all but certainly most. We hardly have any farmers or factory workers compared to what we had at one point. They've mostly moved onto cushy office jobs.
Most is 12%? This is the problem with HN. You're all so bubbled it's ridiculous to think sometimes a HN'er will say something like "If I were President."
You're using officer/administrator role for your number. The number of people who work in an office or sitting at a desk is much higher. I see numbers ranging from 40-60% for that.
What do you like to talk about?
I'm passionate about my work and happy to discuss topics but not too keen to explain it to someone who has nill knowledge of the subject or industry.
Honestly I don't talk much. But generally things related to whatever we're doing, entertainment (books, movies, sports, and so on), my kid when I had him, and now that I am getting older a bit more philosophical meaning of life type stuff.
This is like people railing against images in their webpages or that run their browsers without JavaScript. Like that LLMs are a fundamental paradigm shift in how we interact with computers and the web. How it all plays out is up for debate but there's no doubt that 10 years from now LLMs will play a role in nearly every interaction we have with a computer. The only way that's not true is if something better comes along.
Pining for pre-AI world is like wanting families to gather around the radio. Those days are gone.
> there's no doubt that 10 years from now LLMs will play a role in nearly every interaction we have with a computer
I tend to agree with you. Doesn’t make what Mozilla is doing sensible.
In 1995, one could correctly observe that the internet would “play a role in nearly every interaction we have with a computer.” It would not follow that every app must reïnvent the network stack.
An AI helping out can be useful. Every app being a tiny AI is a cacophony of idiots.
If they were training their own foundational model your analogy would be on the mark. But this is more like porting a command line application to a GUI.
No one's "Pining for pre-AI world". Many people use some amount of AI every day, whether they know it or not. I use Claude Code extensively, for example.
I know it's a paradigm shift. That's not the problem. The problem is that it's often wedged into workflows in ways that aren't helpful to me or are actively harmful. And then there's the question of what is done with the data. I don't need another tech company, non-profit or not, getting a hold of my chatbot conversation history and doing God knows with it.
Mozilla should be a better facilitator of the ecosystem around AI than just putting it in Firefox. Take care of the concerns before just shouting "me too" on a bunch of LLM features, which, to be honest, shouldn't even be a concern for FLOSS.
If someone wants GenAI in Firefox, they can create a branch, design it, implement it, and put it up for discussion. I don't need some CEO telling me the direction of the project. It's the cathedral vs the bazaar, which has been a major part of the FLOSS ethos for decades now.
Five years ago, we could've read this same comment but with "LLMs" replaced with "blockchain" or "crypto".
Yes, it might totally be the case that in 5 years this comment reads as correctly predicting the future that is to come. But it's also possible that it doesn't.
It's not at all clear to me which things will persist in time at the moment they are getting popular. There are lots of technologies that look promising in the beginning and up fizzling out.
Browsers are useful now, and they have been useful for a while. It seems to me like a safer bet to invest on them still doing what they are useful at, in the case that the web keeps being a thing for a while still :)
No, it is nothing like people railing against images or JavaScript in webpages. Those are features of websites that the browser needs to support to provide the full intended experience to the user of websites that use them. In what way is integrating an LLM, let alone an agentic AI, needed to provide the full intended experience of which websites?
Why would my browser that is used to display static HTML need high performance 3D rendering or a low level assembly target?
The websites that use LLMs don't exist yet. Think of something like meetup.com. Instead of that you ask your LLM for something to do this weekend. It finds events, other people looking for something to do, and you have an ad hoc meetup.
Beyond that it's like looking at a blackberry and predicting what it'll be used for in the future. Hard to say "oh gay men will use that for casual hookups and it'll be called Grindr".
I think a lot of families actually restrict or eliminate screen time altogether, and gather round using either no technology, old technology, or new technology that imitates old technology, e.g. Yoto. There is value found in reducing our technology use. Some people may want to avoid AI on ethical grounds, or may be cautious about the cognitive effects of its use.
It's not that the people don't genuinely believe what they're saying. It's that they've deluded themselves into thinking their ideological right is "for the kids".
There's always been Reefer Madness sorts of people. Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll, Video Games, DnD, Rap Music, Homosexuality, and on and on. Today it's half woke mind virus and half DEI (for lack of a better term). Most of the people that spout this stuff genuinely believe they're fighting for the kids.
I don't think there's much underlying relationship. True they will both impact social relationships. But it's more like how being blind or being deaf will impact social relationships. The mechanics might be the same but the cause is very different.
IMHO schizophrenia is a breakdown in the barrier between imagination and processing of reality.
Autism and the like is an inability to process social cues like a blind person might have a damaged visual cortex.
Autism is more broad-spectrum than just related to social processing. It's most visible in social processing because that's the cognitive area that humans have highly specialized in as a species, where expectations of performance are very high, and thus where deficiencies processing complex information in real-time are most visible. If we were birds, we'd probably think autism had something to do with flying. Instead, we are talking tribal apes, so when someone has the cognitive differences that lead to autism, we notice most strongly that they are having trouble being a normal talking tribal ape.
But the effects of autism are visible outside of social interaction too, with repetitive behaviors, intense focused interests, trouble with adapting to change, rigidity in lifestyle, etc.
It is possible though, to unify those things, and to see those other effects also as second or third order effects of the same underlying deficiencies that cause problems in social interaction. I believe, for instance, that our super power as neurotypicals is our ability to see, process, model and make sense, especially in real-time, of what's inside the minds of other people. In a way, we are wired to be comfortable with multiple worlds or perspectives around us, because we can see them, process them, and make sense of them. It makes sense to me that a person who is less good at this, will end up seeking a model of the world that is more rigid. If the worlds of other people around you seem chaotic to you, and uncomprehensible, then you will seek an environment and an understanding of the world that is more static, rigid or fixed. So, I think, at least on a conceptual level, it's possible to link the root causes of social problems to the root causes of the need for rigidity and stability.
There's neurodivergant and there's neurodivergant. I've definitely worked with oddballs and nerds and various atypical folks. But there's a massive gulf between them and someone with legit no questions about it autism.
It was definitely eye opening on the sort of ancient benefit of meat. It's really hard to reach your muscular potential without it.
reply