themk

It was just 5 minutes ago that I prevented a Claude PR from introducing an incredibly obvious RCE bug into a codebase I maintain. The LLMs are no better than the people driving them. But those people spew out more code than ever before.

I think it's largely what you are used to. I make an effort to prepare tofu for my kids. I find it "ok" generally, but my kids? They _love_ tofu. It's their favourite food.

Google Pay may not work, but NFC payments through yiur bankapp probably do. They did for me.

It's pretty exciting to see a small chip with an MMU. I wonder if it would be possible to get sel4 running on this?

I'm also curious about the current draw, but I couldn't find anything?

One of the few sites with a fun "you have javascript turned off" message.

> This game requires JavaScript. Or, if you've superior taste, take out a pen and paper and start listing animals.

I actually noticed this as a kid. One of the early GTA games north locked minimaps, and I knew the city well. Later ones did not, and I was always more confused.

I've pretty much always had GPS nav locked to North-Up because of this experience.

Pandoc? It might help you. If you are programatically generating content, you can emit the JSON intermediate format. If you are hand writing, you can use something more sane like djot.

From what you just wrote, it appears you misunderstood what I said. Just to be clear:

Red kidney beans (50g): PDCAAS = 0.88, Protein = 11.25g Basmati rice (50g): PDCAAS = 0.7, Protein = 4.5g

Red beans + rice (50g, 50g): PDCAAS = 1.0, Protein = 15.75g

Milk (500g..): PDCAAS = 1.0, Protein = 15.5g

So, from a protein perspective (according to PDCAAS), 500g of milk will give you the same amount of usable protein as the 100g rice and beans meal. There is nothing left on the table.

So, just eating kidney beans, PDCAAS would say that you aren't really getting the full benefit of the "protein on the label". But once you combine it with rice, you are getting the full benefit (according to PDCAAS).

You can't look at the digestibility of the two foods in isolation to make the calculations.

As long as you are eating a varied diet, PDCAAS is pretty pointless. If you have an eating disorder, or food scarcity issues, then it might become important.

PDCAAS is dumb when looking at multiple foods. E.g., beans and rice, when consumed together, are like, 0.99, depending on the ratio. That is, the sum is greater than the parts.

> and reading code is harder than writing it.

This is the things thar gets me the most. Code review is _hard_. So hard that I'm convinced my colleagues don't do it and just slap "LGTM" on everything.

We are trading "one writer, one reader" for "two readers", and it seems like a bad deal.

That is quite an extreme take, and one that sounds like it was born from parroting social media takes. Ancel Keys was largely correct, and much of what he said is corroborated by modern science. Probably his main issue was that he was a bit too focused on saturated fat, which is not wrong, but not the only factor. He was wrong that sugar is just empty calories, though he never recommended replacing fat with sugar.

Modern science agrees that saturated fats lead to CVD, but replacing saturated fats with refined carbs also leads to CVD, which Ancel Keys didn't believe (though, to be fair, the populations he studied didn't have access to the types of refined carbohydrates we have today)

The dietary guidelines derived from his work did backfire, but Keys never said to replace saturated fats with refined carbs, which is what ended up happening. He advocated for substituting different fats. But the message that ended up being received was "no fat at all", which no scientist ever actually recommended AFAIU.

The diet he actually recommends is well studied, and found to be protective.

This sounds like they didn't think about it at all. Of course they did, and sure, their techniques were not as sophisticated as today. But there have been plenty of follow-up studies that have controlled more rigorously for those things, and it turns out they were probably right?

Also, the 7 countries study didn't just compare the regions, they also did intra-regional comparisons. Not that I think this particular study is what you should base all your evidence on, but, most others back it up.

The people who run these studies actually know what they are doing. They know the limitations of their methods, and, they have thought about confounding variables. This _always_ comes up in internet debate, like, "ahh, but there are confounding variables so the study must be trash!". It's literally their job to take those confounding variables into account. They don't just grab random people of the street to run these things. And I assure you, they know about the details.

Not the poster, but, usually what people are referring to is all the other stuff that comes along.

Per calorie beef and broccoli are actually surprisingly similar, but broccoli comes with fiber, calcium and vitamin C, while beef comes with saturated fat.

Of course, broccoli is not very calorie dense, so you would need to eat a lot.

More realistically, tofu, which has about as much protein per calorie (and almost as much per gram) as middling lean beef. But has half the saturated fat, more iron, more calcium, and fibre.

You just get more good stuff, and less bad stuff with veg.

Bioavailabilty is a bit of a non-issue. It's measured as if the food you are measuring is the only food you eat. So if it is slightly low on one amino acid, the "bioavailabilty" drops, but noone eats like that. Once combined with other foods, the total "bioavailabilty" tends to increase.

Notably, the epidemiological study people like to dump on the most, largely did use natural experiments (i.e. they chose regions, that, at the time, had very traditional diets, without the convenience of supermarkets to mess it all up). They also didn't rely solely on food surveys, but actually measured the meals.

But all that aside, I don't actually follow a Mediterranean diet, and agree that one has to be careful here, because it is not well defined (or, it might be in some circles, but that differs from what the general population might expect).

The only reason I mentioned it was in response to

> The Mediterranean diet is regarded as quite healthy by many health professionals but, it is also high in carbs and fat.

Where I was pointing out that the fats in the Mediterranean diet (by pretty much every measure of what it means to be a Mediterranean diet), are not saturated, and it is usually saturated fats that are considered "bad".

That is, all I was trying to do was clear up the (common!) confusion about fats (they are not all the same).