ideonexus

The Saturday editorial "Trump's undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere," was the final straw for me. I can forgive an editorial defending Trump's actions--no matter how misguided, but the fact that the WaPo did not disclose Bezos' personal interests in the matter infuriated me bitterly. According to NPR, they corrected the omission on Sunday, but I'm done.

That subscription money now goes to my local NPR station. Anytime NPR covers anything related to Microsoft, they always provide the disclosure of receiving funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That is what legitimate news sources are supposed to do.

Just a few examples:

1. Sugarless Protein Bars: just last week I found one they claimed 30 grams of protein on the front of the package, but hidden in the nutrition facts is that it has four-times the daily recommended saturated fats. These will give you heart disease and are found in the health food section of convenience stores.

2. Pretty much all advertised "health food" snacks will make you exceed your daily saturated fats and sugar limits. If it's not a food in its purest form, it will have added sugar and fat. How many products slap a "high in fiber" sticker on their package, when in reality they have very little fiber or are selling you that fiber with a huge dose of sugar and fat?

3. "lean" meats: This one shocked me. Advertised as high in protein, health youtubers promoted it to me all the time, but actually very rich in unhealthy fats and getting more fatty every decade as cows and chickens are bred for more fat.

4. Rice, Pasta, and other simple carbs: I started monitoring my glucose and these had to go after watching incredible spikes in blood sugar after eating them.

What do I eat now? Whole grains and Legumes daily, leafy greens daily, fresh and frozen fruits, and fish three times a week. My blood sugars are stable, my lipid profile is great, and I'm getting the best sleep of my life as tracked by my fitbit. I look around me at the epidemic of metabolic disease and then I look at how 95% of every grocery store contributes to that and I want to see public policy change on this issue.

It's not just the UPFs, we need scientifically-backed truth-in-advertising for all foods. For years I thought I was eating very healthy, but then my blood tests got worse and worse until my doctor wanted to put me on medications. I asked for six more months, and spent that time reading the labels on all the "healthy" foods I was consuming. It was eye-opening. So much added sugar, saturated fat, and simple carbohydrates spiking my blood sugar and driving up my cholesterol. I dumped all the processed foods, went whole-foods, Mediterranean Diet, pescatarian, and blew my doctor's mind when all my tests came back healthy.

We have an epidemic of declining healthspans forcing most of us to spend the last decades of our lives as invalids, surrendering our life-savings to the medical industry after the food industry is done ruining our health for profit. This is not about personal responsibility. This is about a food industry that is lying to us about the health effects of eating their hyper-palatable, hyper-processed foods. Corporations lie to sell us food engineered to make us addicted, render us sick, and then sell us the medications to keep our hearts beating so we can continue to consume.

"if you can afford to bike in Loudon"

I don't follow your reasoning. It costs nothing to ride a bicycle in most of America. We have bike paths everywhere that are free for anyone to enjoy. You also don't have to live in a locality to enjoy the bike paths there.

For the record, on this specific outing I was doing volunteer trail-surveying. I live in Prince William County. I think the Data Centers are awesome and I love them, the tax revenues they bring in, and the jobs that come with them. It was clear from my comment that I am conflicted about the incredible energy-consumption, not the data centers themselves.

I realize this headline means nothing, but there is something to nuclear power futures. I live in Northern Virginia and my recent 20 mile bike ride in Loudon county was nothing but massive datacenters and crisscrossing powerlines to support them. The western side of neighboring Prince William County is now being consumed for data centers. The Washington Post recently had an article on how the demand for electricity for these centers is getting so desperate that they are running powerlines deep into West Virginia and bringing coal plants back online to meet the demand. Estimates are that it's going to take multiple nuclear powerplants to meet future demand in just this locality.

I have very mixed feelings about this. I love the possibilities of all these datacenters and their potential, but I'm worried about the massive amount of energy they are consuming. If this is all just so much hype and marketing, then it's incredibly wasteful.

Hello. Author of this 17-year-old blog post here. I was a little shocked to find this throwaway post from my ancient history making HackerNews today and I just want to make a couple of notes:

1. If I were to write the post today, I would draw a comparison to Bryan with Oil Companies disputing the science of Global Warming. Global Warming is real, but Oil Companies attack the science when really they disagree with the policy conclusions being drawn from the science. I also see this with modern nutrition, where companies producing unhealthy food are flooding the world wide web with attacks on the science to convince people to keep consuming their products. Bryan was doing the same thing. He abhorred eugenics, but rather than attack the policies, he attacked evolution as a science in the courtroom. That is what he is remembered for and there's a history lesson there that's going to repeat with these modern examples of anti-science.

2. I apologize for the formatting. I upgraded Wordpress and PHP three months ago and lost all formatting on all my posts and the images are messed up. So it's hard to see that much of this is a direct blockquote from the science textbook being referenced. I believe science is real, but I keep a copy of that textbook on my shelf to remind me of how science can be used to justify horrific public policies.

The copyright law portion of the lawsuit is interesting and I'm curious about how that will go, but the NYT has a second argument that every article I read completely ignores: ChatGPT routinely attributes falsehoods to to the NYTs. It's a problem I've had with AI since the beginning, you have to fact-check everything it tells you because it will confidently make up references and facts all the time. It's one thing for ChatGPT to quote a NYT's article verbatim, it's another thing for it to completely make up stories and then attribute them to the NYT. Balancing copyright and fair use is an interesting debate, but when your AI "hallucinates" a completely fabricated article and attributes it to your organization, that's damaging.