algoatecorn

Sorry, but an overwhelming amount of people commenting in here are extremely ignorant of the modern agri-food system.

The notion that robots and drones will eliminate monocultures and chemical inputs is wildly untrue. In some minor cases they will reduce the need.

It amazes me that software engineers think they have the panacea for whatever faults they see in our food system without a full understanding and history of it.

They involve human labor, just like every industrial process in existence. What's your point?

That's false. Homogeneity makes it easier to harvest, process, and store crops. It also drives perfect competition which brings cost down on the commodity market.

We're not moving away from nitrogen fertilizers. Ever. Why?

Look at the following three graphs: global population, staple crop yield, and nitrogen fertilizer application.

Now overlay them. That's why.

Also, there are myriad chemical inputs that cannot be removed simply due to free labor. Sure, a robot can pluck weeds, but what about fungal and bacterial diseases?

I'm not supporting the parasitic nature of landlords.

But the right to own land is an essential part of a functioning society. The idea that no one should be able to own land is ridiculous and does not work. There are plenty of examples of this all across the globe.

Except astroturfing is coordinated. It's not a conspiracy. The shills you mention are just people who are well-informed on nuanced topic. A topic that that seemingly affects everyone (because food), and therefore everyone chimes in.

Except most people don't know jack about modern food systems and its history. All they know is: big pharma bad, big ag bad, big food bad.

Is this an AI-generated comment? Nothing about the article mentions herbicide

Let's just take a pause and consider some key information:

-This is an association study

-If we CTLR+F "cause", "causing", "causal", etc, the only mention of causation is with extremely high levels of flouride and another mention with extremely high levels of glyphosate and zebrafish

Now let's zoom way out, and consider the use of glyphosate in general. If you plot grain yields over time compared to herbicide use over time and fertilizer use over time, you can see one thing quite clearly. The use of synthetic inputs, along with plant breeding and genetic engineering, has saved humanity from starvation and allowed unhindered growth.

Any experienced agriculturalist knows this. Any experienced commodity trader knows this. All this talk about commercial farming needing to be eradicated is fantasy talk. There are trade-offs to everything.

When you consider cost/acre and calories/acre, it is also abundantly clear that for all its flaws, modern industrial farming is a technological marvel.

When you look back into the history of herbicides, you can consider glyphosate to be way better than many of the past options. So things are definitely getting better.

As for the demonization of glyphosate, I would say that most of this literature is just provocative headlines for the sake of grant funding. It's very trendy to claim that glyphosate is causing X,Y, and Z. We saw the same thing with MSG as a food additive, and are still dealing with the proliferation of bad science, bad messaging, and a sticky belief system within genpop.

They aren't "kafkaesque political redefinitions". You are just choosing to use an overly simple definition because it supports your argument. The NBER determines recession based on a sophisticated methodology. One that considers the holistic status of the economy. This whole "two quarters of negative growth" is unga bunga economics

I think there's just a statistically reliable number of people who will carry X balance at Y interest rate, and card companies use perks as product differentiation so they can attract more users. If the perks somehow get even more people to ignore their balances, that's just a bonus. At the end of the day the card companies are competing against each other.

I wonder how much of this is just due to education. I know several people who make good money, but carry over absurd amounts on their cards each month, losing hundreds of dollars.

These same people have tens of thousands, probably more, in their savings. But for some reason they can't bring themselves to pulling a chunk of their savings out and zero-ing the debt.

I think they were taught that savings should only go up, but don't realize they're being totally fleeced by 20% interest rates.

The relationship between certain endurance training and arrhythmia seems to follow a J-curve.

No activity = higher risk // Moderate activity = lowest risk // Extreme activity = higher risk that increases with # of training hours

There's a few mechanisms: cardiac remodeling due to pressure and load, fibrosis, and vagal tone

This happened to me after years of 60-100 mile weeks combined with competitive weightlifting and rock climbing. Symptoms showed up, I got diagnosed, then received an ablation which solved the issue. I'm back to a high level but don't push it like I used to. Was probably doing >1500 training hours/year. Now I'm closer to 800-1000/year

That's an important correction, thanks.