I’ve literally made the same exact meal for breakfast and dinner every single day for the last four years straight. Lunch changed because of an external factor, but I’ve had the same meal for lunch every day for about six months now. The meme isn’t referring to making your favorite meal, it’s referring to making the only thing you eat for that meal, ever.
As someone who worked at more than one grocery store where the manager scheduled more people per week if someone needed to constantly be on cart duty (e.g., during the winter, because folks were less likely to put their carts back during the cold), I often don’t put my cart back in the correct spot. I do so because at the stores I worked at, that would help people who want more hours be able to make a case for those hours to the manager. I often had to do so when I wanted more hours, and I was the person who did the carts. I never do this when cart duty is otherwise hard (e.g., late at night, in the cold, in the summer heat, etc.)—in those cases, I always bring my cart back inside of the store and put it completely away.
So, yes, but there are sometimes reasons to do something besides what’s courteous.
Try eating the same number of calories on a vegan diet. It’s hard. More fiber fills you quicker. The diets can’t equate both satiety and calories. Lower calories on a vegan diet is a feature, not a bug.
Recently, a company called Pangram appears to have finally made a breakthrough in this. Some studies by unaffiliated faculty (e.g., at U Chicago) have replicated its claimed false positive and false negative rates. Anecdotally, it’s the only AI detector I’ve ever run my papers through that hasn’t said my papers are written by AI.
Things appear to have changed; thanks for drawing my attention to that. I may start editing some articles in my broader area.
I can’t without doxxing myself more than I’d like. It wasn’t an article about himself, nor his research. This was about 10 years ago, so the rules may have changed. I’ll take a look and edit my post accordingly if so.
A problem with Wikipedia is that experts are not allowed to contribute to their areas of expertise because they’re “biased” (see edit below). I know a professor at a top university who used to spend his free time editing Wikipedia outside of his specific area but in his broad area of expertise as a method of disseminating science knowledge to the public. When the higher-up Wikipedia editors found out who he was, they banned his account and IP from editing.
Having the lay public write articles works when expertise isn’t required to understand something, but much of Wikipedia around science is slightly inaccurate at best. (This is still true, probably owing to the neutral point of view rule [giving weight to fringe ideas as a result] or the secondary source prioritization over primary sources.)
Edit: current Wikipedia editing rules and guidelines would not support this ban, so things appear to have changed. Wikipedia still recommends against primary sources as authoritative sources of information (recommending secondary sources instead), which is not great. But, they explicitly now welcome subject matter experts as editors.
Yes, it plays a role. What exactly it’s doing is unclear, and it’s probably more that it’s setting up tau to do the real nasty stuff, but it contributes. We know that from experimental work in nonhuman animal models and converging longitudinal work in humans. See, for example: https://www.cell.com/neuron/pdfExtended/S0896-6273(22)00305-1
That’s just *56. Amyloid has been known for decades to play some role, even though *56’s data was fraudulent (for a lay-friendly discussion, see https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/what-we-do/researchers/news/explaining-amyloid-research-study-controversy). Amyloid is certainly not the only thing at play, but it does play some role.
Thanks, I appreciate your perspective! The job wouldn’t be in Copenhagen, but I do hope to visit before the offer deadline.
Would you recommend Denmark to someone from the US considering taking a job there?
Current multimodal models can pass those with ease iirc
in a made up language
Aren’t all languages made up?
No? They merely state that their results are consistent with one of Poore and Nemecek’s findings. The methods, article scope, and more differ.
I’m not going to defend the article further. If you all want to believe a website over a scientific publication, feel free.
It’s a Nature article; there’s no better source for information. Not sure where you’re getting the 2/3s idea or meat idea from that article–it does not use such language.
Your graphic uses the same larger type of metric of greenhouse gases as does the Nature article. If you click on the greenhouse gas equivalents bit in the header where the figure came from, it makes that clear:
Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, but not the only one. To capture all greenhouse gas emissions, researchers express them in “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO₂eq). This takes all greenhouse gases into account, not just CO₂.
You’re not wrong about meat not comprising two-thirds of any person’s total GHG emissions, and I’ve never suggested otherwise. I just wanted to provide a better source of information than that graphic.
Sharing what I eat would give away my identity to anyone who knows me in real life and happens to read my comment, sorry.